Johar Ali Proprietor, Super Steel Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST & ST, Indore
Central Excise
2018 (4) TMI 956 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 18-4-2018
Excise Appeal No. 51934 -51935 of 2016 – Final Order No. 51390 – 51391 \/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra, President And Hon'ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nShri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants
\nShri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer : Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra:
\nThe present appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 27-28\/2015-16 dated 29.3.2016.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a proprietary concern and engaged in the manufacture of MS bars, MS flats etc. His brother is also having another proprietary firm doing same business but working independently.
\n3. A search was conducted at the business premises on 29.3.2011. The statements of Shri Anshu Kumar Dubey, Supervisor and pr<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n mall rolling mills in the rented premise. The appellant does not possess any installation capacity to produce such quantity within a period of two months which was presumed by the Department. He also submits that period of dispute is November, 2009 to January, 2011. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ame for the banking authorities. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n vouchers were genuine. At the same time, the appellants submitted that fake vouchers were generated to show high turn over for obtaining the loan from the Bank. To this effect, the learned Counsel has produced a copy of the letter dated 15.2.2011 which was addressed to the Senior Branch officer, Vijaya Bank and the same was received in the bank. In the said letter, the appellant has demanded the credit limit of Rs. 150 lakh. Be it as it may. Except these two evidences as mentioned above, no other corroborative evidence was collected by the department. No buyer of the finished goods was found or examined. No vouchers pertaining to raw material supply or inputs was found during the course of search. Other evidence regarding inputs, labour, transport were also not collected by the department. In a number of case laws including Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (235) E.L.T. 623 (Tri. – LB)], it was observed that the clandestine removal is a very serious charge for which substantial evidenc<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Johar Ali Proprietor, Super Steel Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST & ST, IndoreCentral Excise2018 (4) TMI 956 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 18-4-2018Excise Appeal No. 51934 -51935 of 2016 – Final Order No. 51390 – 51391 \/2018Central ExciseHon'ble Mr. Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra, President And Hon'ble Mr. … Continue reading “Johar Ali Proprietor, Super Steel Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST & ST, Indore”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11489\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. He read out para 12 of the impugned order wherein it was mentioned that extra payment which appears to have been paid to Mahesh Enterprises for more production of scrap.
\n6. He submits that it appears meaning thereby that the department was not having any substantial proof but demanded the duty on the basis of merely presumption and assumption.
\n7. He also submits that the appellant as on 31.3.2011 (after the search), has obtained the registration. It is the submission of the learned counsel that one Shri Gupta, part-time accountant was also working with other entities. He mixed up the vouchers of other firms. Learned Counsel further submits that the factory was closed soon after the search.
\n8. According to learned Cou<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n11. According to the learned Counsel, the sole basis for making the allegation is high consumption of electricity. He submits that there is heavy fluctuations and break down of the electricity during the relevant period, so to restart the furnace, more electricity is required from time to time. Lastly, he made a request to set aside the impugned order.
\n12. On the other hand, learned representative of the department has justified the impugned order. He submits that the statement of supplier Mr. Imran Khan, partner of M\/s. Bombay Scrap, was recorded on 18.1.2011, where he deposed that he was the owner of the plot. As per the agreement, assessee-appellant has paid the electricity bill for the period under consideration. Learned representative also submitted that the bills were submitted before the lower authorities, have proved that the electricity consumption was very high as per the table given in paragraph 18 of the impugned order. He submits that app<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n