Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 146 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- Duty demand for the period from April ’05 to Aug. ’06 is in respect MS Ingots which are manufactured by the appellant. The raw material for the MS Ingots is Sponge Iron, Pig Iron, Steel Scrap and Ferro Alloys. The MS Ingots are manufactured by using two induction furnaces each of 6 MT capacity manufactured by M/s. Inductotherm. The allegation of un-accounted manufacture and clandestine removal of 21082 MT MS Ingots during period of April ’05 to Aug. ’06 is based on the assumption that power consumption per MT of MS Ingots is 830 units of electricity which according to the Department, is based on Technical Literature of M/s. Inductotherm. - It is well settled law that when duty demand against an assessee is based on opinion given by an expert and his cross-examination is requested, it has to be allowed. As opinion given by the technical expert is only an opinion evidence and its evidentiary value has to be ascertained by permitting his cross-examination. Similarly documents recovered from the premises of M/s. Manu Steels which are one of the main corroborative, evidence are in the nature of third party documents, and, therefore, in view of Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT, reported in [1980 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court], the cross-examination of Sh. S.K. Pansari from whose premises these documents had been recovered was necessary, more so when the same had been requested and as such the denial of his cross-examination has resulted for denial of natural justice - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
|