TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be set aside on the discharged of the company and persons involved in the case by the Hon’ble Special Court of Economic Offences - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/244-249/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21048-21053/2018 - Dated:- 31-7-2018 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. Raghuvendra B. Hanjer For the Appellant ORDER Per : P. Anjani Kumar M/s. Singh Ispat Ltd. (the appellants) were visited by the Central Excise Department on 25.07.2006; on verification of records, the officers found that the RG-1 register was only maintained up to 23.07.2006. The officers found that due to excess stock of 74.869 Mts of Flats, MS Square and Rods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of suppression in production. The statement of the Manager regarding two consignments under single invoice was not strengthened by further investigation and therefore, it is proved that the Revenue do not have concrete and corroborative evidence to prove the allegations of clandestine removal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the SCN has been issued on the basis of statements given by the officers of the appellants which made under duress and have not been supported by any concrete evidence. The stock of alleged excess was taken on the basis of an eye estimate as is evident from the Mahazar and on the basis of consumption of electricity excess production was alleged too; no concrete proof has been brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parag India Limited (Tri. Del)- 2013-291 ELT 81. (ix) Rakesh Kumar Garg (Del HC)- 2016 (331) ELT 321. (x) OUDH Sugar Mills Limited (SC)- 1978 (2) ELT J 172. 4. The Departmental Representative has reiterated the findings of the OIO and has controverted the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the statements are taken under duress and that the excess of stock was only on the basis of an eye estimate; he further submitted that none of the officers of the appellants have reiterated the statements and therefore, the submissions at this juncture are not valid. The facts of excess stock were accepted by the appellants as can be seen from the Mahazar. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
