TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt per : Rakesh Kumar Garg,J]- The Department of Central Excise has filed the present appeal under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, 1944(for short 'the Act') against the order dated 28.5.2007 passed in Excise Appeal No.281-83 of 2006 by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by raising the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether mere denial of cross-examination of the Government examiner of questioned documents "has prejudiced the case of the respondents and is sufficient to drop demand on 220 parallel invoices and 16 Grs" when their issuance and clearance was otherwise accepted by the authorized signatory and the Director of the noticee in their statements under the Central Excise Act ? 2. Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resorting to clandestine removal of non-alloy steel ingots and was evading the excise duty, the Central Excise officers visited the factory of the respondent-company and verified the stock of the finished goods and raw material. There was no discrepancy of stock of finished goods. But, the officers detected shortage of raw material of 84.800 MT of sponge iron and the respondent immediately reversed the Cenvat credit of Rs.75,980/- vide RG-23A Part II account debit entry No.123 dated 3.9.2001. The officers also searched the factory head office, residential premises of Shri Raman Kumar Jha, Authorized Signatory and Sunil Kumar Gupta, Director of the respondent-company and nothing incriminating was found. It appears that an informer provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded a finding that the alleged invoices and the statement on the basis of which duty and penalty has been imposed upon the assessee is not corroborated by any independent,unimpeachable evidence, such as any material/ evidence showing purchase of raw material/excess consumption of electricity/transport and delivery of goods to consignees mentioned in the invoices/payment to assessee etc. and therefore, charge of clandestine removal against the assessee was not proved. The Tribunal also found that the statement of the authorized signatory of the respondent was retracted by him on 4.9.2001 and the same could not be relied upon by the Revenue to make the basis for passing the impugned order of imposing duty and penalty. The relevant part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has failed to produce any material corroborating the parallel invoices etc. and the statement of the assessee which was relied upon by the department was retracted on the very next day. It is also note worthy that the photo copy of the invoices provided by the informer to the department were not supported by any material and during the search by the officers of the department in the factory, office, residential premises of the Director and the authorized signatory, no incriminating documents were found. Therefore, the demand of duty on the basis of the said invoices in the present case is not sustainable. It is also not disputed that the respondent has also reversed the Cenvat credit on the shortage of inputs detected during the stock ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
