9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. The appellant is manufacturer of iron and steel products. A show cause notice dated 23-3-2006 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 69,68,916/-, penalty and interest for the period 2001-02 to 2005-06. The appellant contended before the authority that the demand of duty is against the burning loss arising during the manufacture of the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty. Studies were conducted in respect of Mixed Scrap and Sorted scrap (heavy) on 18-10-2006 and 31-10-2006 and physical verification was done in the presence of authorized representatives of the party on the above dates. Physical verification charts/reports in this regard are enclosed herewith. Burning loss came to 6.21% while using mixed scrap on 18-10-2006, 6.17% while using Sorted scrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner modified the demand of duty on the basis of the average loss of 7%. It is seen from annexure to the Order-in-original that in some years, there was marginal excess of 7%. He submits that there is no evidence of clandestine removal of the goods and, therefore, demand of duty on the basis of average calculation of burning loss is not justified. In this connection, he relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, therefore, the demand of duty and penalty are justified. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the verification report, as stated herein, indicates the percentage of burning loss 6.21% to 10.54% of various type of material. The Tribunal in the case of Ram Steel Rolling & Forging Mills (Supra) allowed the burning loss of 10% in respect of the raw ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. It is seen that entire case was made out on the basis of the record which was modified by the adjudicating authority and, therefore, there is no reason of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. So the demand of duty fails on merit as well as limitation. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in open cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
