Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 258 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - MS Ingots - demand confirmed merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions - no corroboration to the statement - demand has been confirmed based upon the documents/ ledger maintained by the third party - authenticated and reliable evidences or not - Application for settlement under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - discharge certificate has not been issued in their favour for want of requisite payments to be made prior to issue of discharge certificate - HELD THAT:- The Department conducted investigation in this case with the search in the premises of M/s. Monu Steels. The appellant, Shri S K Pansari, proprietor of said propriety concern who apparently and admittedly was working as commission agent between the sellers and buyers of iron and steel products and used to get commission from either the seller or buyer or from both of them depending upon the finalisation of the deal and the nature of goods - But it is observed that the documents and statement based where upon were the demands against others including other manufacturers or raw material providers were of M/s. Monu Steel and Shri S K Pansari, the present appellant. Those orders are passed based upon the fact that the demand cannot be confirmed based upon such a record which was not recovered from the concerned assessee but from the possession or premises of third party. The demand has been confirmed based upon certain entries in the private ledger book of M/s. Monu Steels itself where Shri S K Pansari, Appellant himself is the proprietor. The premises of M/s. Monu Steel and of Shri S K Pansari were searched. The incriminating documents were got recovered from the appellant’s own premises. Physical inspection of furnance of 4000 MT installed in appellant’s premises when got compared with the electricity consumption record and the production record of the appellant it correctly led the adjudicating authority to conclude the suppression of production of M S Ingots by the Appellant and clandestinely removing those ingots without proper assessment and payment of duty. Not only this statement of Shri S K Pansari has sufficient admission for the alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of excise duty. The statement being given to Customs Officer is very much admissible in evidence. As per section 52 of Indian Evidence Act, Admissions need no further proof unless retracted. As already observed above, there is no retraction on part of the appellant. Documents recovered from the premises of appellant rather corroborate the said admission. I am therefore, of the opinion that demand has rightly been confirmed against the appellant - Appeal dismissed.
|