9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumptions and assumptions as it is a serious charge required to be proved by Revenue by sufficient evidence. Mere statement of buyers based on their memories was insufficient without support of corroborative evidence. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos. E/852 & 851/2011-EX[SM] - A/71058-71059/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Ms. Stuti Saggi (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in these appeals is whether the excise duty have been rightly demanded on the basis of third-party records. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturer of MS Ingots, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rger than the recorded quantity of ingots as shown in their Form IV Register. 3. A perusal of the daily incoming material report revealed the name of the supplier/manufacturer of ingots to mention under the heading Party . The vehicle number written under heading lorry number reflected the registration number of the vehicle used for transportation of the ingots from various supplier/manufacturers to SSIL. Similarly perusal of consolidated monthly report of SSIL revealed the name of the supplier/manufacturer from which the ingots had been received by SSIL, during the month along with the quantity and the value of those ingots. In order to ascertain the quantity of ingots received by SSIL from the appellant Shyam Ferrous Ltd. (SFL for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the MS ingots manufactured in the factory were mainly sold to units like M/s Sarada Steel, M/s Premier Alloys, M/s V. V. S. Alloys etc. located in the industrial area, Malwan, Fatehpur and to M/s Premier Ispat Jainpur. On being shown the documents pertaining to his unit, wherein receipt of MS ingots by M/s Sarada Steel Industry Ltd. dispatch from the appellants were shown, he clarified that MS ingots weighing 139.195MT was sent from their unit in the month of July, 2004 only vide Invoice No.120 128, the attested copies of these invoices were submitted by him. Except 139.195MT of MS ingots, no other goods were dispatched to SSIL from their unit during July to September, 2004. On being shown the documents recovered from SSIL, he clarified th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Rule 25 of CER, 2002. Further penalty ₹ 1 lakh was imposed upon Shri G.K. Gupta, Director under Rule 26. 6. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before Learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Tribunal. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants have argued that the whole case of Revenue is based on assumptions and presumptions. In the course of investigation at the end of the appellants nothing incriminating have been found. There is no admission on the part of the authorised signatory or the director of the appellant in support of the case of Revenue. Further, Revenue have not brought any material on record to corrob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
