9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lely based upon the shortages, without there being any independent evidences, do not sustain and is set aside. Demand of ₹ 3,32,731/- stands confirmed on the ground that the appellants have removed 102.950 MT of MS Ingots twice by using the same sale invoices - Held that:- There is no evidence as to whom the said goods were sold for the second time. The said fact cannot be held to be a sufficient evidence to uphold the charges of clandestine removal - demand set aside. Penalties also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/50389/50390/2015-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO.72229-72230/2018 - Dated:- 14-9-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Raji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awan Garg, Director of the unit in terms of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned order we note that shortage of Sponge Iron and MS Scrap allegedly detected by the visiting officers were explained by Shri Pawan Garg, Director in his statement recorded on 08.10.2007 and 16.10.2007. He deposed that such shortages were on account of melting loss which has not been recorded by them for the last 2 months. That the recovery from C.I. Burada purchased by them was very less whereas they had shown much more in their record that the recovery from Sponge Iron purchased by them was less because of its different grades ; that due to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is solely based upon the shortages, without there being any independent evidences, has to be set aside. 6. Further, demand of ₹ 3,32,731/- stands confirmed on the ground that the appellants have removed 102.950 MT of MS Ingots twice by using the same sale invoices No.75, 76 and 77 all dated 11.07.2007. The said allegation is based upon the sole fact that the date in the invoices was overwritten as 12.07.2007. However, apart from the said fact, there is no evidence has to whom the said goods were sold for the second time. The said fact cannot be held to be a sufficient evidence to uphold the charges of clandestine removal. Accordingly, we are of the view that said demand is also not maintainable. 7. In view of the above, we se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
