2014 (3) TMI 1047

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri R.K. Mishra, Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 3. On going through the impugned order, I find that the respondents were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 5-12-2008 alleging that they had suppressed the production of ingots .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the auditors, sometime later. No other investigation appears to have been conducted to corroborate the observation of the auditors except a letter dated 7-5-2008, by the jurisdictional Range office, asking the appellants to discharge the duty liability, with interest, in r/o finished goods equal to the burning loss shown over and above 5%. It is seen from the above that the adjudicating author .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , bank accounts etc. was required to be probed/investigated, during the said month, and adduced to establish the charge. A naked fact of excess burning loss would not establish the serious office of clandestine removal." 5. After observing so, the appellate authority has placed reliance on various decisions of the Tribunal holding that the allegations for clandestine removal cannot be upheld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X