9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. Departmental Representative appeared for Revenue and nobody appeared for the respondents. 2. As per facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron falling under Chapter Head No. 7203 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposing penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. On appeal against the above, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 5. On going through the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that he has taken into consideration the fact that there was no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote of the statement of Shri Subrata Chakraborty, DGM (Process) of the respondent company dated 7-3-2005, who deposed that the figures entered in their process report were estimated figures as per the availability of raw materials and planned production, but it may not be the exact production of the plant available for dispatch as they have nagging problem of leakage form cooler inlet which result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose for maintenance of such records as also the fact that they cannot be taken as the final production inasmuch as the percentage yield differs on day-to-day basis and the plant production can never be achieved. Apart from the said production records, which are being contested by the respondents, there is virtually no other evidences on record indicating any excess manufacture of final product o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
