9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Rourkela Commissionerate confirming the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,70,51,370/- along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of rolled products i.e. MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Plates, MS Rods etc. classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act on which Central Excise duty is being paid. In the process manufacture, some quantity of MS Scraps (Melting Scrap) is also generated as bi-product. The Appellant used Mild Steel Ingots (MS Ingots) as raw material for manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production and clandestine removal of their finished goods by utilizing 14456.48 MT of unaccounted raw material. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Kartick Kurmy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that by the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has held that the Appellant has purportedly clandestinely manufactured and removed excisable final products without payment of duty. The learned Commissioner has further confiscated Indian currency of Rs. 1,69,04,700/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 as made applicable to Central Excise Act, 1944, which was seized on the day of search treating it purportedly related to clandestine clearance during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Vs. CCE [2008 (362) E.L.T. 961 (Chh.)] * CCE Vs. Vishnu & Co. Pvt.Ltd. [2016 (332) E.L.T. 773 (Del.)] 6. The learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted that neither the description, nor place of recovery nor the page count nor the maker of so called "Kacha Chitha" is matching or known. Hence it is not safe to rely on such vague material to uphold serious charges of clandestine removal and no reliance can be placed on it. He relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- * Hunsur Plywood Works Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CCE [2006 (201) ELT 239 (Tri. Bang)] * Premier Glass Industries Vs. CCE [2000 (123) ELT 703 (Tri.)] * Kuber Tobacco Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2015 (317) ELT A159 (S.C.)] 7. The learned Advocate for the Appellant su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of clandestine removal of finished goods is wholly illegal and the demand of duty is clearly not sustainable. He relied upon the decision of CIT Vs. M/s. Balajee Wires Pvt.Ltd. [2008 (304) ITR 393) and Haribhagat Agarwalla Vs. State of Orissa [(1982) 51 STC (Ori)]. 9. He further submitted that in the course of investigation, the Appellant had involuntarily deposited Rs. 2.00 Crores under protest at the insistence of the investigating officers. He also stated that the Director, in his statement, has stated that the cash relates to sale of consumable/assets and also relates to other parties. 10. He further submitted that confiscation of Indian currency of Rs. 1,69,04,700/- is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. He rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Department and the receipt by the consignees; (v) Amount received from the consignees, statement of the consignees, receipts of sale proceeds by the consignor and its disposal. Whereas, in the instant case, no such clinching or corroborative evidences to the above effect have been brought on record. 15. In the instant case, the entire case of the Revenue is based on the Kaccha Chithas seized from the residence of the Director. The manner in which the said Kaccha Chithas is seized has been strongly agitated by the Appellant. We find that the said Kaccha Chithas/documents should have been seized in the presence of the Director. There is considerable force in the contention of the Appellant that the Kacha Chithas relied upon by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Fopundary & Castings Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ranchi [2019 (8) TMI 527 -CESTAT Kolkata] - Para 18 * Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India [2014 (309) E.L.T. 411 (All)] - Para 12 * Balashree Metals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. UOI [2017 (345) ELT 187 (Jhar.)] - Para 5 vi * CCE, Meerut-I Vs. R.A. Castings Pvt.Ltd. [2012 (26) S.T.R. 262 (All.)] * Popular Paints and Chemicals Vs. CCE & Customs, Raipur [2018 (8) TMI 473 (Tri.-Delhi) - Para 17 17. We further find that the Revenue had neither disclosed any material nor described the method of stock taking to counter the case. We are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue without any basis, such as, the details of the weighment slip, counting slip etc., as the case may be. It cannot be on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
