TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reof, the Tribunal is not justified in passing an order directing the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as pre-deposit. – pre-deposit reduced - Appeal is disposed of accordingly - 48 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2010 - V.C. Daga and S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri V. Sridharan a/w. Prakash Shah, i/b PDS Legal, for the Appellant. Shri Pradeep S. Jetly a/w. J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C. : Heard. 2.The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent waives service. 3.By consent of the parties, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing. 4. The appellants Trimurti Ispat Limited have filed the above Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . According to the details recorded in the panchnama, 1434.62 units were consumed to produce 1 MT of MS ingots. 8. The Central Excise Officers once again visited the factory of the appellants on 12th December 2005 and conducted an experiment to ascertain the actual power consumption for producing 1 MT of steel ingots. According to the details recorded, 1239 units of power was required to produce 1 MT of ingots. The departmental authorities were tentatively of the view that the appellants appeared to have manufactured 43515.43 MTs of MS ingots during the period, whereas the production of 27422.79 MTs was actually recorded in the RG-1 register. The authorities were of the view that the appellants had failed to record the production of 16093 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal on merits within eight weeks. The Appellate Tribunal further directed that on compliance of the aforesaid order, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalties imposed on the appellants and the balance amount of duty. In view thereof, the present Appeal is filed raising the question of law, set out in paragraph 4 above. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that though the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants on 8th December 2005 and 12th December 2005 and prepared panchnamas showing that the power consumption for producing 1 MT of steel ingots would be 1434.62 units and 1239 units, respectively, the department did not take any cognizance of the panchnama draw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th December 2005 and 12th December 2005, why the department failed to take cognizance of the results recorded in the panchnama dated 8th December 2005 and only took cognizance of the results of the panchnama dated 12th December 2005. It was also not explained on behalf of the respondent why, after allowing one of the witnesses of the respondent to be cross-examined by the appellants, the other witnesses were not produced for cross-examination. In view thereof, the Tribunal is not justified in passing an order directing the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as pre-deposit. However, after the aforestated arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellants as well as the respondent, a consensus was reached that the appellants m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
