9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAL EXCISE CUSTOMS, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR (C.G) [ 2019 (12) TMI 620 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , this Tribunal held that the charge of clandestine removal cannot be based on series of assumption and presumption, where it should be based on evidence like unaccounted purchase of raw material receipt and consumption of raw material etc. - the demand on the basis of yield production of raw material of sponge iron 403.51 metric ton found short is not acceptable, but at the same time, as no explanation was given by the appellant for shortage of raw material, it is held that (if any) Cenvat credit taken by the appellant on sponge iron is required to be reversed alongwith interest. Shortage of M.S. Ingot - HELD THAT:- No explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HON BLE MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Anurag Mishra, Ms. Priyanka Goel and Shri K. Ganesh Singh, Advocates for the Appellant Shri O.P. Bisht, Authorized Representative for the Department ORDER ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellants and also penalties on both the appellants have been imposed. 2. The facts of the case are that the officers of Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Raipur has investigated the Unit 1 of the appellants. During the course of investigation, it was found that appellants are having the present Unit and in continuation, to that search in January 2014, the Unit was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice issued on 04.03.2016 is barred by limitation. He also submitted that no cross-examination was granted to the appellant to demand duty on shortage of raw material and finish goods. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned AR supported the impugned order and submitted that it is a case of clandestine removal of goods and shortage of raw material without any explanation. In that circumstances, the duty is rightly demanded from the appellants. 5. Heard the parties considered submission. 6. On careful consideration of submission, we find that duty has been demanded from the appellant as further following chart : 7. On going through the said chart, demanding duty from the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be detected and investigation was continuing process and after completion of investigation, the show cause notice has been issued to the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be held that show cause notice issued to the appellant is barred by limitation. Further, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that crossexamination of has not been granted. On this point, we also find that it is an evidence based case as at the time of search, the raw material and finish goods were found short which is evident from the records and duty has been demanded on the basis of the said records. In that circumstances, we find that this case is based on the records found during investigation and no statement is relied to demand duty. Thereafter, we hold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
