TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record to prove clandestine removal of goods. Even the contractor could not produce his own records. No evidence in the form of procurement of excess raw material, production record, statement of any employee or owner, clearance of goods or receipt of any consideration towards such suppressed production has been relied upon - on the basis of contractors statement and especially in case, when even his own record is not produced, the demand cannot be sustained. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise/Cross/108/2010 in E/59-61/2010-EX [DB] - A/52040-52042/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 1-3-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Mr. Alok Barthwal, Advocate f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Daily Stock Account was shown as Nil. A demand of ₹ 18,83,992/- was confirmed on shortage of Sponge Iron and of ₹ 1,00,550/- on shortage of M.S Ingots. 3. Shri Alok Barthwal, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has filed written submission. He submits that the duty demand is based upon assumption/ presumptions. As regard demand on the basis of statement of contractor Shri Nizzammudin Sheikh, he submits that it is mere statement of the Contractor that the monthly production of Sponge Iron was 1600 MT. and the same is not supported by any single corroborative evidence. There is no evidence in the form of records of contractor himself or wages paid to him or raw material, power, clearance of goods, transportation and no buyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka Chemicals Versus CCE, Chennai 2002 (148) E.L.T. 101 (Tri. - Chennai) as upheld in 2003 (153) E.L.T. A298 (S.C.) , Savitri Concast Ltd. Vs. CCE, Japipur 2015 (329) ELT 213, CCE, Trichy Vs Sree Rajeswari Mills Ltd. 2009 (246) E.L.T. 750 (Tri. - Chennai) upheld by High court in case of CCE, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Sree Rajeswari Mills Ltd. 2011 (272) E.L.T. 49 (Mad.), CCE, Surat Vs. Gandhi Texturisers 2008 (230) E.L.T. 186 (Tri. - Ahmd.), Sharadha Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot, 2005 (179) E.L.T. 336 (Tri. - Mumbai), Someshwara Cem. Chem. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyd. , 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1062 (Tri. - Bang.) 4. As regard demand on shortage of goods, he submits that the shortages has arisen as the quantity is recorded on the basis of estimation or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the sides and perused the records. 8. We find that the duty demand of ₹ 79,44,528/- has been confirmed merely on basis of statement of contractor with no iota of corroborative evidence. Except his statement of having done production, no other records or any corroborative evidence has been brought on record to prove clandestine removal of goods. Even the contractor could not produce his own records. No evidence in the form of procurement of excess raw material, production record, statement of any employee or owner, clearance of goods or receipt of any consideration towards such suppressed production has been relied upon. Further, demand can be made only in the eventuality, where the goods have been removed from the factory. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that except acceptance of shortages by Shri Sukumar Ghosh, no evidence of having removed such quantity of goods without payment of duty is available in the adjudication record. The Appellant has contended that the shortage has arrived due to their accounting method adopted over a period of time. We are of the view that except finding of shortages, no instance of removal of such goods without payment of duty has been brought on record. Placing our reliance on the judgments rendered in this context in case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. Minakshi Castings 2011 (274) ELT 180 (ALL.), CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Nexo Products (India) 2015 (325) ELT 106 (P H), CCE ST, Ludhiana Vs. Anand Foundaries Engineers 2016 (331) ELT 340 (P H) and COMM. Vs. Vikram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
