K. MURUGESAN, S. SRIDHARAN, M\/s. SRIRAJ STEELS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 840 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 19-4-2018
E\/42188 to 42190\/2017 – 41242-41244\/2018
Central Excise
Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
\nFor the Appellant: Shri M. Karthikeyan,
\nFor the Respondent: Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nAll the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order.
\n2. As per facts on record, M\/s. Sriraj Steels P. Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots. Based upon the report from the Electricity Department, their power connection was cut on 30.08.2006 and the factory was closed. The Central Excise officers visited the factor on 04.09.2006 and conducted various checks and verifications, in the presence of the security guards, as the factory was not working and no employee of the appellant was available for stock taking<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ication took a categorical stand that the Revenue's case is self-contradictory in respect of clearances – on the one hand, they allege shortage of scraps and on the other hand, they allege issuance of invoices without removal of scrap, in which case, the scrap should be in excess, in their factory. They also sought a reply from the Revenue, as regards the actual weighments. The Superintendent (Adjudication) vide his letter dated 07.06.2008 addressed to the appellant clarified that no weighments of material was made and the whole of the materials were estimated approximately. On the basis of the said communication, the appellant assailed the actual fact of weightments and replied that there were no shortages. In any case, they contested the demand of clandestine removal on the ground of shortages, by submitting that mere shortages cannot lead to the conclusion of clandestine removal, in the absence of any other evidence to that effect. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ent of raw materials, clandestine manufacture of the goods, their transportation or identification of the buyers etc., so as to lead to the inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal, It is well settled law that the allegations of clandestine removal, cannot be upheld merely on the basis of shortages in stock. Reference can be made to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Commissioner Vs M\/s. Meenakshi Steels as also to Tribunal's decision in the case of (i) M\/s. Amba Steels Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-l reported in 2016 (335) E.L.T.97 (Tri. -All.); (ii) M\/s. Jyoti Ingots P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I reported in 2015 (329) E.L.T.511 (Tri.-Del.); and (iii) M\/s. Chandpur Enterprises Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I reported in 2014 (310) E.L.T.904 (Tri. -Del.). As such, I find no reasons to uphold the said part of the impugned order. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" K. MURUGESAN, S. SRIDHARAN, M\/s. SRIRAJ STEELS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRYCentral Excise2018 (7) TMI 840 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 19-4-2018E\/42188 to 42190\/2017 – 41242-41244\/2018Central ExciseSmt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member For the Appellant: Shri M. Karthikeyan, For the Respondent: Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER All the … Continue reading “K. MURUGESAN, S. SRIDHARAN, M\/s. SRIRAJ STEELS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY”<\/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-12601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12601","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=12601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAs regards the proposed penalties under Rule 2<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. As regards the penalty on the individuals, the appellant<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n