9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in manufacturer of sponge iron. Their names were found mentioned in the incriminating records of M/s. Kailash Traders, an agent engaged in business of facilitating sale and purchase of iron and steel products on commission basis, as were recovered by the Department during the search of the said agent's premises on 20th December, 2006. Based upon those documents and even the statement of the proprietor of said Kailash Traders that the show cause notice dated 04.02.2011 was served upon these appellants alongwith various other traders/buyers in the similar trade. Search was conducted in the premises of appellants also on 4th February, 2007 and show cause notice was served proposing the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,24,71,399/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the adjudicating authority below for want of any concrete/corroborative evidence and holding that the entries found in the 3rd parties document are not reliable. Confirmation of the remaining demand is contrary to those findings. It is further submitted that the shortage as was noticed was on mere estimation basis. Otherwise also it was brought to the notice while submitting defence argument, that the appellants are recording production in Silos by dip reading method since inception, which may have resulted into the noticed short coming. Otherwise also mere visible examination is not the correct criteria of establishing the shortage, that too, for confirming the allegations as that of clandestine removal. While relying upon case law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alleged removals, the department has not investigated the following aspects : (i) To find out the excess production details. (ii) To find out whether the excess raw materials have been purchased. (iii) To find out the dispatch particulars from the regular transporters. (iv) To find out the realization of sale proceeds. (v) To find out finished product receipt details from regular dealers/buyers. (vi) To find out the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack of funds, purchases by the buyers or any other evidence proving clandestine manufacture and removal. As already held by the adjudicating authority that there is no such evidence. Department is not in appeal against the said observations as well. Once this is the fact of the present case, mere shortage in the stock as noticed, that too, on the basis of eye estimation only, the same cannot be held to be convincing corroborative evidence even qua the alleged shortage. This Tribunal in the case of Chandpur Enterprises Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut-I reported in 2014 (310) E.L.T. 904 (Tri.-Del.) has already held as follows:- When it is an admitted position that the quantity of the finished goods was determined on the estimation basis only and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
