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 257 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - M. S. Ingots - excess consumption of electricity - corroborative evidence or not - retraction of statements - entire demand is based upon the records recovered from Sh. S.K. Pansari, Proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence expect the said statement and private dairy entry of 3rd party i.e. of Sh. S.K. Pansari, which contains the name of the appellant. The law as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence of any corroborative evidence is well settled. Only on the basis of statement of third party no demand could be made. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter of M/S. CONTINENTAL CEMENT COMPANY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2014 (9) TMI 243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and also this Tribunal in the cases of M/S. RAIPUR FORGING PVT. LTD., SHRI SUNIL KEDIA, KRISHNA IRON STRIPS & TUBES PVT. LTD., SHRI SUNIL AGARWAL, SHRI RAM ROLLING MILL, SHRI SANDEEP GIDWANI VERSUS CCE, RAIPUR-I [2016 (2) TMI 763 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], C.C.E. & S.T. -RAIPUR VERSUS P.D. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [2015 (11) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, LUDHIANA VERSUS M/S ANAND FOUNDERS AND ENGINEERS [2015 (11) TMI 1166 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] have categorically held that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. The penalty imposed on Shri Naren Kumar Mishra, Director of the appellant is also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|