Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 560 - CESTAT MUMBAIClandestine manufacturing and clearing of the said M.S. Ingots - shortage of raw materials and excess of finished goods - the case of the revenue is that appellant had not recorded the production in their factory premises and clandestinely removed the goods. To come to such conclusion they relied upon the electricity consumption and the statements of various transporters. - Held that:- there is no evidence which indicated that appellant had procured raw materials which were unaccounted. There is an addendum issued to the show-cause notice which indicates that appellant had procured additional raw material from M/s. Sidhbali which was unaccounted but we find that the said allegation is not supporting the case when various personnel of the main appellant were confronted with such statement of M/s. Sidhbali, stated that they have not received the goods from M/s. Sidhbali. Further, we find that sponge iron is not the only input required for the manufacture of M.S .Ingots, Revenue has not brought on records to show that various other inputs which are required for manufacturing of M.S. Ingots were also procured clandestinely and were unaccounted. Secondly, the allegations of clandestine removal of manufactured goods is very serious allegation and needs to be substantiated by Revenue authorities with tenable evidence to show that there was large scale manufacturing of commodities. As regards the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority in respect of shortage of goods, learned Counsel fairly submits that they are not contesting the issue but submits that penalty imposed be set aside. In view of the foregoing, we hold that except for the confirmation of demand on the shortages as noticed by the adjudicating authority we set aside the impugned order confirming the demands raised on the appellant as regards clandestine removal of finished goods. As we have set aside the demands raised, we find that there is no reason to visit the appellants with any penalty. Decided substantially in favor of assessee.
|