M\/s. Ashok Ispat Udyog, M\/s. Vijay Chand Bothra Versus Comm. of C. Ex., CGST, Raipur
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 1412 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 23-5-2018
Exicse Appeal No. E\/50874\/2018-Ex [SM], Excise Appeal No. E\/50812\/2018-Ex [SM] – Final Order No. 51980-51981\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member ( Judicial )
\nFor the Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Goel, ( Advocate )
\nFor the Respondent : Mr. S.Nunthuk and P. Juneja A.R.
\nORDER
\nPer : Ajay Sharma
\nThese are case of clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are same therefore, I decide both the appeals by a common order.
\n2. The question involved in these appeals is whether the principal Commissioner in its impugned order in original dated 11.01.2018 is justified in confirming the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,56,803.\/- alongwith interest and penalty, in respect of clandestine removal of 80.695 the MT of M.S Ingots recovered from the app<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . Pansari, Prop. of M\/s. Monu Steel. At the time of adjudication before the Principal Commissioner M\/s. Monu Steel (Sh. S.K. Pansari) did not appear for cross examination despite various opportunities given. The Show Cause Notice itself mention that the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,29,78,297\/- is inclusive of the duty of Rs. 2,56,803\/- involved in 80.695 MT of MS ingots. Therefore, it is clear that duty amount on 80.695 MT of M.S. ingots is also included in the total duty amount of Rs. 3,29,78,297\/-. In the impugned order although the demand of Central Excise duty of 3,29,78,297\/- was dropped by the ld. Principal Commissioner, but still he confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,56,803\/- in respect of 80.695 MT of MS ingots. In the said impugned order it has been mentioned that the evidence cited by the Department in the Show Cause Notice pertain to a comparative shorter period and is also insignificant i.e. for 80.695 MT out of total 10,825 MT. In the <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s also made only on the basis of the entries made in the records of M\/s. Monu Steel and held as under: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Ashok Ispat Udyog, M\/s. Vijay Chand Bothra Versus Comm. of C. Ex., CGST, RaipurCentral Excise2018 (5) TMI 1412 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 23-5-2018Exicse Appeal No. E\/50874\/2018-Ex [SM], Excise Appeal No. E\/50812\/2018-Ex [SM] – Final Order No. 51980-51981\/2018Central ExciseMr. Ajay Sharma, Member ( Judicial ) For the Appellant : … Continue reading “M\/s. Ashok Ispat Udyog, M\/s. Vijay Chand Bothra Versus Comm. of C. Ex., CGST, Raipur”<\/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-11915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11915","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=11915"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11915\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n xxx xxx xxx
\n 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 contaced 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 the record of M\/s Monu Steels.
\n 5. The law i.e. as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is well established. Refere<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n