9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise duty - the imposition of penalty was not on account of the allegation of clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty alone as was noticed in the narration of facts. There was excess stock found on verification, there was excess raw materials found to have been consigned to the appellant in two trucks which were examined by the inspection team at the premises of the appellant; on which examination and proper weighment done, presence of raw material in excess of that declared in the invoice was found. In addition to this was the allegation of manufacture based on the documents recovered from the premises of the appellant on inspection. Insofar as the excess of 3.280 Metric Tonnes of Forged Steel Grinding Media Balls; the same was detected on proper stock verification conducted in the presence of two employees of the appellant. The stock verification report was the basis of the allegation so levelled of excess stock found - With respect to the clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty, the records recovered from the premises of the appellant on inspection was relied on specifically in paragraph no. 10 of the show cause notice. The calculation chart was also a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the assessee - appeal dismissed. - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Advocate Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshuman Singh Sr. SC, CGST CX CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) The following questions of law have been framed in this case:- (i) Whether the assessment of excise duty and further levy of interest and penalty are sustainable since there is absolutely no evidence of a manufacture of excisable goods by the appellant herein? (ii) Whether the proceedings could have been initiated based on the registers and loose sheets recovered from the premises of the appellant without corroboration of the manufacture done and the clearance effected of excisable goods? 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the proceedings initiated were based on loose sheets of papers as recovered on an inspection and there was absolutely nothing to evidence manufacture of goods which had escaped levy of excise duty on its clearance. It is pointed out that the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to decision based on no evidence , it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding. The allegation against the imposition of penalty is that there is no evidence to establish manufacture and clearance of manufactured goods without payment of excise duty. 6. Since the contention was raised on the basis of the show cause notice, we examined the same, which is produced as Annexure-1 along with the writ petition. We have to observe at the outset that the imposition of penalty was not on account of the allegation of clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty alone as was noticed in the narration of facts. There was excess stock found on verification, there was excess raw materials found to have been consigned to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicated such job work having been conducted. One of the Directors of the appellant was found to be the Director also of M/s Bihar Foundry Casting Ltd. 10. With respect to the clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty, the records recovered from the premises of the appellant on inspection was relied on specifically in paragraph no. 10 of the show cause notice. The calculation chart was also annexed as Annexure-XXI along with the show cause notice. 11. The Tribunal had clearly found from the adjudication order that the register recovered from the appellant s premises contained full details regarding the activities of the appellant including attendance of labourers, shifts-run, quantity of LDO consumed, quantity of rod production of different diameters, pieces of balls trimmed, quantity of raw materials received, registration number of vehicles by which quantity of Alloy Steel Ingots were received, breakdown of machine, tripping of power. layoff in the factory and repairing of machines etc. All these registers were admitted to have been initialed by one C.S Pathak, Accounts Assistant, whose statement was recorded in which the initial was admitted. Another initial seen fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that case. We are not convinced that the facts apply to the present case. 15. We have already noticed that the proceedings were initiated on three counts (i) the excess stock found on stock verification, (ii) the excess raw material found physically on inspection of two trucks found at the premises of the appellant with raw materials consigned to the appellant supported by invoices drawn in favour of the appellant but revealing far less quantity than that loaded in the vehicles and (iii) the production details as obtained from the registers, note-pads and loose sheets recovered from the premises. It cannot at all be said that there was no evidence indicating production of excisable goods. The registers, note-pads and cash-books maintained by the assessee clearly indicated the production of the finished product far in excess of that revealed in the books of account, as having been cleared after paying excise duty. We find on facts that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation of production in excess of that cleared by payment of excise duty. 16. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the appeal, having found the factual premise to have been adjudicated properly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
