COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, DELHI (EAST) Versus ASHUTOSH METAL INDUSTRIES
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 496 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (366) E.L.T. 1019 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 29-8-2018
CEAC 29\/2017
Central Excise
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ.
\nPetitioner Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel.
\nRespondent Through: Mr. V.S. Negi and Mr. Satish Chander Kaul, Advocates.
\nMR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL)
\nThe questions of law framed in this case read as follows:-
\n“(1) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in rejecting and not taking into consideration computer printouts and holding them as inadmissible for failure to meet the conditions specified in Section 36B of the Central Excise Act?
\n(2) Whether the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is contrary to facts and perverse?
\n(3) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in excl<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ementioned, and duly corroborated by the statement dated 18.11.2005 of Smt. Janki Sharma, reveal that it contains the details of transactions of ATM (and SHIVA), which is abbreviated to mean Ashutosh Metal Industries, and Shri Jatinder Kumar Aggarwal is the proprietor of M\/s. ATM. The papers of ATM are page numbered from 1 to 165. Shri Manish Sethi, however, retracted his statement vide his letter no. Nil dated 02.02.06 received through post on 07.02.06. In response to the aforesaid letter, DGCEI vide letter F.No. DZU\/INV\/169\/2005\/474 dated 15.02.06 had advised him to co-operate in the investigation. I find that the retraction was sent after almost 3 months of it being recorded and appears to be more in the nature of an after thought and it appears to have been done with a motive to mislead the investigation. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n It is seen that ATM account are maintained up to 06.05.05 and thereafter for the subsequent period the account is maintained in the name of 'SHIVA'. The documents show the party-wise transaction details and consolidated details of both sale and purchase by M\/s. ATM. On scrutiny of the printouts marked as “SHIVA”, the description mentioned from page 1 to 135 and from page no. 151 to 209 was party-wise ledger account of payment details, purchase of copper scrap, purchase account, sale of copper ingots\/rods and receipt of payment in cash. The details mentioned at page no.136 to 150 were in respect of parties to whom copper ingots\/rods were sold clandestinely and the total sale of copper ingots\/rods was worth Rs. 35,02,87,889\/- as shown at page no.150 for the period from 07.05.05 to 16.09.05. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n count of clandestine sale of ingots\/rods, as reflected in the account of 'ATM' and 'SHIVA' were actually the transactions of M\/s. ATM only as corroborated by the statement of Smt Janki Sharma and this indicates that a huge quantity of unaccounted ingots were manufactured and cleared clandestinely. The details of quantity reflected\/written on the kachhi parchi can be seen from the sample kachhi parchies as evidence recovered during search from Smt. Janki Sharma. However, while entering these data in the computer, only relevant information such as receipt & payment details were entered and hence the printouts of ledger did not show the quantity. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of search conducted separately, the duty demanded to the tune of Rs. 8,30,53,761\/- could not be sustained. The CESTAT noticed that the show cause notice itself showed that the daily production from the appellant's factory was 5 tonnes and that it runs in a single shift and works for about 10-15 days in a month. It was concluded that the calculations regarding production in the appellant's factory deduced by the Revenue Authorities in the order-in-original in the form of a chart, which was the basis of the duty liability, was entirely fanciful. The CESTAT thereafter elaborately analysed both the digital material and the evidence as well as the statement of Ms. Janki Sharma. The CESTAT thereafter pointed out the improbabilities in the conclusions arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority and observed as follows:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n books, nor carried out any investigation on the buyers who are alleged to have purchased these finished goods, in cash without payment of duty. From the records recovered from the factory, there is no evidence of any physical receipt of raw materials used in production of such a huge quantity of finished goods. In fact on the date of search, no discrepancy was recorded in respect of stock of raw materials and finished goods vis-a-vis that recorded in statutory records. The Revenue has also not bothered to investigate about the transportation of raw materials as well as finished products. The total quantum of alleged clandestine. production and clearance also show an over estimation, keeping in view the production capacity estimated by the Commissioner himself in the impugned order. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rs (P) Limited vs. CCE, Chennai – 2004 (165) ELT 291 (Tri. Chennai.) and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Continental Cement Company vs. UOI- 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.). We have gone through the above case laws which support the arguments of the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ssion as well as complete reading of the orders of the Adjudicating Officer and the CESTAT that the case built up against the assessee is entirely based on the evidence procured from third party. The lynchpin of the Revenue's case is the statement of Ms. Janki Sharma. Concededly, there was nothing recovered from the premises of assessee connecting it with her-either as an employee or as a consultant. It is not even Revenue's claim that during the course of adjudication, it asked any query from the assessee for directing her to furnish the bank statement etc. to find out possible connection with respect to any payments made or other financial connection with Ms. Janki Sharma. In these circumstances, the word of Ms. Janki Sharma against the respondent\/assessee was entirely hearsay one. In such event, the Revenue could have yet proceeded to establish its case provided some link with its allegations of clandestine removal and excess production had been there. The only material it was able <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n o = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, DELHI (EAST) Versus ASHUTOSH METAL INDUSTRIESCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 496 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (366) E.L.T. 1019 (Del.)DELHI HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 29-8-2018CEAC 29\/2017 Central ExciseMR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel. Respondent Through: Mr. V.S. … Continue reading “COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, DELHI (EAST) Versus ASHUTOSH METAL INDUSTRIES”<\/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-13620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13620","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=13620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n39. The documents of M\/s. ATM show the party-wise details of transaction and a consolidated details of sale and purchase made by M\/s. ATM. The scrutiny of the seized printouts an<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n39.2 From scrutiny of the documents in the made up file page numbered 1 to 56 showing 9th transaction details of clandestine removal of copper ingots\/rods, purchase of scrap and payments & r<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n40. Further, a huge quantity of unaccounted production and subsequent clearance thereof is corroborated from the evidence of higher consumption of LDO used in furnace which was purchased unaccounted; however some surreptitious purchases were recorded in computer data base as seen from the printouts recovered.
\n40.1 On scrutiny of<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“11. It is settled law that documents recovered from a third party can be used against the manufacturer to prove clandestine removal only when these are supported with corrobor<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n12. It is true that the evidence which is required to be produced in quasi judicial proceedings should be such that the charges get established on the basis of preponderance of probability. The standard of <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n14. In view of the discussions in above paragraphs, we find that the evidences produced by the Revenue for sustaining the duty demand has not been corroborated by detailed investigation. The allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance cannot be sustained on the basis of such flimsy evidences. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous application also disposed of.”
\n5. Learned counsel for the Revenue urged that the Tribunal erred in interfering with the finding of fact that in the absence of any concurrent material connecting the assessee with the recoveries made, duty liability could not be imposed. It is submitted that the statement of Ms. Janki Sharma clear<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n12.11.05
\n5,16,58,179.00
\n4,44,10,401.47
\n71,05,66 4.25
\n1,42,113.28
\n72,47,777.53
\nTOTAL
\n59,19,61,613.30
\n50,89,07,851.88
\n8,14,25,2 56.29
\n16,28,505.13
\n8,30,53,761.42″
\n7. The inference that the Revenue sought to draw a reference to “ATM”; the link it sought to make by the statement of Ms. Janki Sharma. As observed earlier, there was no scrap of paper or evidence linking the assessee with any allegations levelled against it vis-à-vis excess production and clandestine removal. On the other hand, the CESTAT noticed that the assessee's installed capacity was the production of five ton of copper ingots. Apparently, the assessee was able to function only half the month i.e. for about 15 days. Given this established and known capacity, the mere circumstance that the assessee had procured diesel equivalent to Rs. 29,00,000\/- without any further calculation could not have led the Adjudicating Authority to conclude that clandestine removal to the extent of Rs. 8,30,53,<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n