9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is well settled. Only on the basis of statement of third party no demand could be made. The show cause notice has been issued and the demand for the month of May, 2010 has been confirmed merely on the basis of the ledger account retrieved from the pen drive [for the period from 2009 to 2011] seized from the premises of SSPL on 7.7.2011 and there is no evidence to prove that such unaccounted figure has actually been received by the Appellant. Mr. Nitin Agrawal, Director of SSPL also in his statement nowhere mentioned the name of the Appellant - demand cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly, 2011, the department came to the conclusion only that during the period of May, 2010, the Appellant have received 150.040 MT of MS Ingots cleared by M/s. SSPL for which they have made payments in cash to them. And out of 150.040 MT of MS Ingots, the Appellant have manufactured 144.038 MT of MS Angles/channels and 3.008 MT of Waste and Scrap (end cutting) and later on removed the same clandestinely without the cover of Central Excise Invoices. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 29.5.2015 was issued to the Appellant as to why:- 13.1 Central Excise Duty, inclusive of Primary and Secondary Higher Edn. Cess, amounting to ₹ 3,99,687/-(Rupee Three Ninety Nice Thousand Sex Hundred and Eight Seven Only) lievable on 144.038 MT of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he names found in the tally accounts are of one Raj ji and there is no evidence to correlate the Appellant with the said Raj ji . He also submitted that the said tally account has not been supported with any independent evidences i.e. weighment slip, transporter s record, consignment note, entries in the appellant unit, payment to supplier of MS Ingots and payments received from customers for manufactured goods namely angles/channels and waste scrap. He further submitted that in the statement of Nitin Agrawal, Director of SSPL, the name of the Appellant has not been mentioned anywhere. Only because Mr. Jitendra Rampuria (Director of Appellant), in his statement dated 4.5.2015 has stated that he is not in a position to state about the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Del.), CCE ST Raipur Vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd.- 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE ST, Ludhiana Vs. Anand Founders Engineers- 2016 (331) ELT 340 (P H), have categorically held that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. 8. In an identical matter this tribunal vide its order dated 04.04.2018 in Appeal No. E/50526-50527/2018-SM titled as, Shree Consultants Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C.E. S.T. Raipur set aside the demand which was also made only on the basis of the entries made in the records of 3rd party. Similarly this tribunal in the matter of Excise Appeal No. E/50874/2018-Ex [SM] M/s. Ashok Ispa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
