9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht on record with corroborative evidence to allege clandestine removal against the appellant and was decided in favor of assessee. Following the same, appeal s dismissed in present case also - appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as simply passed the order on conjectures and surmises?" 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a manufacturing unit engaged in manufacturing of iron and steel goods falling under Chapter heading 72 and 73 of Ist Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent unit is managed and controlled by two persons namely Sunny Garg and Kewal Garg. Apart from the respondent unit, these two persons manage and control other three sister units namely M/s Sada Shiv Steels Mills (SSSM), M/s Sada Shiv Castings Limited (SSCL) and M/s Sada Shiv Ispat Limited (SSIL). The office of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence received an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty. Statements of proprietors of the firms as well as other evidence was collected by the Investigating Agency and after giving due opportunity to the respondents, Commissioner vide order dated 5.6.2008 confirmed the duty as well as penalty against all the firms and their proprietors. Aggrieved thereby, six appeals were filed by the respondent units and their proprietors before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 8.8.2016, Annexure P.3, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue before this Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. 5. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that identical appeal i.e. CEA No.8 of 2018 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
