9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered from M/s.PIL cannot be held against the appellant. The order confirming the recovery has no legal basis to sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 51504 of 2018 [SM] Excise Appeal No. 51509 of 2018 [SM] - FINAL ORDER No. 50795-50796/2019 - Dated:- 24-6-2019 - MR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Abhas Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P.r. Gupta Mr. K. Poddar, Authorised Representatives for the Respondent ORDER Appellants herein are the manufacturers of MS ingots falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Act, 1985. Acting upon his specific information that M/s.Pankaj Ispat Ltd., Raipur (PIL in short) is indulge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed signatory thereof i.e. Shri Suresh Gupta. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide order No.42 dated 20.02.2017. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Mr. Abhas Mishra, ld.Counsel for the appellants and Mr.P.R. Gupta Mr. K. Poddar, Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Department has raised a wrong recovery relying upon a third party evidence i.e. documents recovered from M/s. PIL. No investigations in the form of search or recoveries from the appellant premises were made. There is no other corroborative evidence on record to prove the allegations as have been confirmed by the adjudicating authority be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence, it is necessary to check the evidentiary value of the third party evidence. The relevant case law in the case of Bajrangbali Ingots Steel Pvt. Ltd. Suresh Agarwal vs. CCE, Raipur in Appeal No. E/52062 52066/2018 heard on 16.11.2018, which is held as follows:- 9. The law i.e. as to whether the third 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 established. Reference can be made to Hon ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) as also Tribunal s decision in the case of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-I 2016 (335) ELT 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
