9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on the basis of statement of third party no demand could be made. The Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter of M/S. CONTINENTAL CEMENT COMPANY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 2014 (9) TMI 243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and also this Tribunal in the cases of M/S. RAIPUR FORGING PVT. LTD., SHRI SUNIL KEDIA, KRISHNA IRON STRIPS TUBES PVT. LTD., SHRI SUNIL AGARWAL, SHRI RAM ROLLING MILL, SHRI SANDEEP GIDWANI VERSUS CCE, RAIPUR-I [ 2016 (2) TMI 763 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , C.C.E. S.T. -RAIPUR VERSUS P.D. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [ 2015 (11) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, LUDHIANA VERSUS M/S ANAND FOUNDERS AND ENGINEERS [ 2015 (11) TMI 1166 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and steel products. Further, equal amount of penalty was imposed under Section 11 AC along with interest. Another proposed demand of ₹ 8,73,77,090/- was dropped on account of presumed suppressed production and clearance of 28696.017 MT of M. S. Ingots, on the basis of excess consumption of electricity. Further, penalty under Rule 26 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules was also imposed on M/s. Monu Steels and Shri Naren Kumar Mishra, Director of the appellant company and also on M/s. Gopal Traders. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submit that the entire case of the department is based upon the entries in the diary recovered from one Mr. S.K. Pansari (proprietor of M/s Monu Steels), and also on the statement of the said Mr. S.K.Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mises of M.s Monu Steels (Prop. Shri S. K. Pansari), Commission Agent, Raipur and after seeing the entries pertaining to my unit and satisfying myself that Annexure-A has been prepared on the basis of such entries I am affixing my signature on it, as a token of having seen and perused the same. 7. Therefore, apart from the third party statement, no other corroborative evidence has been produced by the Department. 8. The said show cause notice is mainly based upon the entries recorded in the dairy of third party i.e. one Sh. S.K. Pansari, Proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel. The entire case of the Revenue is based upon the records recovered from the said Sh. S. K. Pansari, Proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel. 9. The ld. Advocate for the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence to show the movement of the goods from the premises of the appellant to the premises of any buyer(s) or the customers, nor they brought on record any evidence as to who are the buyers of the goods allegedly sold through M/s. Monu Steel. 12. The ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that if the department s contention is accepted, that there might be sale of clandestine removal of goods through M/s Monu Steel, then the onus is on the department to make an enquiry, at least from some of those customers, who might have purchased such goods. However, no such enquiry has been made from any of those persons or the buyers of the goods allegedly sold through M/s. Monu Steel. 13. In the impugned order, nowhere it has been discuss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of the entries made in the records of M/s Monu Steel and held as under:- xxx xxx xxxx xxx 4. I find that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the records recovered from M/s Monu Steels. Even in those records, the appellant s name has not been spelt correctly and it is based upon the statement of the representative of M/s Monu Steels that the Revenue entertained a view that S. Iron refers to the appellant s clearances. When the Director of the appellant contacted by Revenue, he very clearly in his statement recorded by the officers, deposed that he does not even know M/s Monu Steels. Further, the Revenue has not made any enquiries from the buyer M/s Sapna Steels and has solely relied upon the entries made in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Pansari, Proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel, without there being any corroborative evidence. 16. Recently also this Tribunal in a batch of matters being Appeal Nos. E/51117-51118/2018-SM and E/50940, 51236, 51241/ 2018 Arora (CG) Energy Steel P. Ltd., Vs. CCE ST, Raipur vide common order dated 15.06.2018 and also in the case of Suryoday Steel Plant Pvt. Ltd. and ors Appeals Nos. E/51420-51371/2018-EX(SM) dated 2.7.2018 vide Final Order No.52409-52410/2018 set aside the demand since the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the entries made in the records of M/s. Monu Steel, without there being any corroborative evidence. 17. In view of the above discussion and finding, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
