TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounter the same. Therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order in this regard. In case of other part of the demand, which is of ₹ 18,39,809 against the suppressed production and clandestine removal of 549.660 MT of sponge iron, there are sufficient evidences available in the form of loose papers, log sheets, outgoing and incoming goods details and statement of GM (Commercial), Sh. A.N.Rao. M/s PDIPL also deposited the major part of this demand which was appropriated by the impugned order - Based on the evidences available on record we agree with the findings given in this regard by the impugned order. Thus there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order confirming above demand of ₹ 18,39,809 against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with the interest has been confirmed and equivalent penalty also has been imposed on the appellant, M/s PDIPL. The revenue has also filed appeal (No. 3150 of 2010/EX) against the same order dated 26.03.2010 of the Commissioner inter alia stating that adjudicating authority erroneously did not confirm the duty in case of 1540.709 MT of sponge iron, production of which was suppressed and removed clandestinely by M/s P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd.. 2. The appellant has been represented by the ld. Advocate, Sh. M.P. Singh and the revenue has been represented by the ld. AR, Sh. R.K. Majhi. Appeal No. E/1944/2010 EX (DB): 3. This appeal is filed by M/s P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. The appellant (PDIPL) based on appeal memorandum interalia s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory of M/s P. D. Industries Pvt. Ltd., which corroborate the fact of clandestine removal of the subject goods found short during physical verification. The impugned order in para 10.2 gives the findings in this regard. There is no evidence produced by M/s PDIPL, the appellant, to counter the same. Therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order in this regard. 4.2 In case of other part of the demand, which is of ₹ 18,39,809 against the suppressed production and clandestine removal of 549.660 MT of sponge iron, there are sufficient evidences available in the form of loose papers, log sheets, outgoing and incoming goods details and statement of GM (Commercial), Sh. A.N.Rao. M/s PDIPL also deposited the major part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that admission is substantial piece of evidence unless proved as extracted under coercion, duress, threat etc. By following the above judgments, I hold that the above statement of Sh. A.N. Rao, GM (Commercial) of the Noticee has got evidential value. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of K.P. Basheer Vs Collector reported I 1999 (109) ELT 247 (Tri) has held that admitted facts need not be proved/ established by the department. Further in the case of Commissioner Vs Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd reported in 1999 (112) ELT 1058 (Tri) the Hon ble Tribunal has held that what is established does not have to be proved. In this regard I find that in the case of CCE, Surat-I Vs Umiya Chem Industries [2005 (185 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereby dismissed as without merits. Appeal No. 3150 of 2010/EX: 6. In this appeal Revenue challenges the Common Order dated 29.03.2009 in respect of the suppressed production and clandestine removal of total 1540.709 MT of sponge iron involving Central Excise Duty of ₹ 52,13,280. 6.1 The subject demand of ₹ 52,31,280 arising on account of alleged suppressed production and clandestine removal of ₹ 1540.709 MT of sponge iron is inter alia discussed in the impugned order in its paras 10.3, 10.3.1 and 10.3.2. The impugned order in para 10.3.1 observes as under: 10.3.1. In this context, I find that these loose papers, undisputedly, have been recovered from the Noticee s factory under panchnama dated 25.08.2008 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
