9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for the same was cleared under the cover of Central Excise, on payment of duty, the CESTAT was justified in confirming the demand, so far as the 17,943 kgs of billets found which were supposed to be kept in the custody of the appellant at the relevant time. With regard to the contention raised by the appellant that the CESTAT has committed an error by not adopting the same reasonings which were given for granting relief in respect of 9247.5 kg of billets which were alleged to have been found shortage on the ground as recorded in para no.7 of the Impugned Order passed by the CESTAT, it is not tenable in view of the fact that the CESTAT has distinguished shortage of 17,943 kg of billets on the ground that the same was seized on 27.03.1999 whereas the shortage of alleged 92475 kg of billets was set aside only because in view of the finding arrived at by the CESTAT that there was no actual shortage of billets and that same was only pseudo and there was no evidence on record produced by the revenue to show that the billets are being used in the manufacture of final products clandestine. The question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue as there is no i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izure of the billets done earlier on 27.03.1999, 17943 kgs of billets were placed under seizure which were again handed over back to the appellant-assessee to be kept in safe custody. However, the appellant without permission of the authority utilized such billets but the same were included in the total stock of goods being 37,051.500 kg mentioned in the RG-1 Register. 4.3. The show-cause notice was issued by the Department and the appellant was called upon the show-cause as to why the excise duty of Rs. 5,83,312/- should not be recovered under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso 11A (1) of the Act. 4.4. The appellant submitted the reply and after considering the written submissions of the appellant, the show-cause notice was adjudicated by order-in-original dated 28.08.2003. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the levy of excise duty to the tune of Rs.5,87,312/- along with demand of interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty. 4.5. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals, Rajkot, who vide order in appeal dated 18.05.2004 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 4.6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cover of Central Excise documents on payment of duly. As such, I am of the view that the duty is required to be confirmed against the appellants in respect of the said quantity of the seized billets and the appellants are also liable to penalty for the contravention committed by them as discussed. 5.2. Thereafter learned advocate Mr. Gupta invited the attention of the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the relief granted by the Tribunal in respect of 9247.500 kg of billets recorded as under: 7. However, as regards the balance quantity. I agree with the Ld. Advocate that there is no categorical acceptance by Shri Kadecha in his first statement given on the spot. They have also contested before the Commissioner that the billets under process were not taken into account while conducting the stock taking. The DR's plea that the factory was visited subsequently, but the officers were not allotted to enter has been effectively rebutted by the Ld. Advocate when he submitted that the subsequent day of visit of the officers was a public holiday and nobody was present in the factory. The officers were also not in uniform and in these circumstances the Chowkidar dic. not allow them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that, it is admitted by the appellant that the quantity of 17943 kg of billets were utilized which were in the custody of the appellant without permission and therefore the CESTAT was justified in confirming the duty. 6.1. It was further submitted that the CESTAT has arrived at a finding of fact to the effect that the statement of the authorized representative establishes that the goods have been consumed by the appellant for manufacture of the final products and therefore the Tribunal confirmed the excise duty and in view of the concurrent findings of the facts arrived at by the both the authorities, no interference may be called for. 7. Considering the above submissions and in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal in respect of the 17,943 kgs of billets seized on 27.03.1999 by the respondent Department, it is not in dispute that the said billets were utilized by the appellant assessee without permission from the Competent Officer and could not have been produced at the time of inspection carried out on 04.07.2000. The CESTAT was therefore justified in holding that as per the material available on record and in absence of any evidence produced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
