M\/s Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus CE & CGST, Jaipur
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 567 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 7-2-2019
Appeal No. E\/52155\/2018 – Final Order No. 50191\/2019
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nMs. Rinki Arora, Advocate – for the appellant
\nShri P. Juneja, DR – for the respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
\nAfter hearing both the sides, duly represented by Ms. Rinki Arora, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri P. Juneja, ld. DR for Revenue, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS bars. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 3.8.2010, who conducted various checks and verifications. Nothing incriminating was found.
\n2. However, the residential premises of one of the Directors Shri Rajesh Natani was also put to search on the same day and certain loose documents, kacchi parchi, private ledgers as well as computer laptop, pen drives and broken data<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n f the original adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal by the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n by them and non-conduct of stock taking does not make any direct sustainable impact on the facts of the case and accordingly he rejected the same. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus CE & CGST, JaipurCentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 567 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 7-2-2019Appeal No. E\/52155\/2018 – Final Order No. 50191\/2019Central ExciseMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate – for the appellant Shri P. Juneja, DR – for the respondent ORDER … Continue reading “M\/s Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus CE & CGST, Jaipur”<\/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-16704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16704","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=16704"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16704\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. On going through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the appellant had taken a categorical stand that the entries in the ledger, on which Revenue has relied upon not only belong to them but the same relates to one M\/s Sanjog Steels, Bagru. It was disclosed by them that the Director was also doing the trading in the same very goods and as such various documents recovered from his premises were in connection with his trading activity and has nothing to do with the manufacturing activities of the appellant. They also produced the ledger account of M\/s Sanjog Steels to impress upon their stand that the entries in the ledger recovered from the residential premises were of M\/s Sanjog Steels. It was further contended that in the appellant's premises, no stock taking of the final product or the raw materials was conducted so as to corrob<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. I note that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon recovery of the so called incriminating evidence from the residential premises of one of the Directors. They have not adduced any evidence to connect these documents with the activities of the manufacturing unit. No further investigations stand made by them from the persons concerned with the production of the goods in the assessee's factory and their clearances. Further, there is no identification of the transporters or the recipient of the goods, thus establishing that the appellant had actually cleared the goods in a clandestine manner. Though, Revenue is not expected to prove its case of clandestine activities to the hilt but the evidences produced by the Revenue should be, at least, to an extent so as to inspire confidence in the prosecution's case. In the present case, I not<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n