TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Raj Ratan Casting Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as RRCPL) were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under chapter sub heading no.7204.90 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The officers of Central Excise Intelligence conducted searches on 25.02.2004 at the factory and office premises of RRCPL, office premises of M/s Raj Ratan Industry Limited ( hereinafter referred to as RRIL), residential premises of Shri Atma Ram Khatri Managing Director of RRCPL, residential premises of Sunil Khatri Director of RRCPL and residential premises of Shri Pawan Agarwal who was a broker dealing with M.S. Ingots. At the factory premises of RRCPL 106.407 MT of M.S. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacturing and clandestinely removing without maintenance of record, evaded Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,36,05,002/-. Therefore, through the said show cause notice appellants were called upon to show cause, as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 1,36,05,002/- should not be recovered under proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944. There was proposal for imposition of penalty on appellant and penalty on Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Shri Anil Awasthi, Shri Gaya Prasad, Shri Abhishek Jaiswal and Shri Amit Jain. Cross examination of Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Shri Anil Awasthi and Shri Gaya Prasad were carried out. The Original Authority decided the said show cause notice through impugned Order-in-Original N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Panchnama. (v) During the cross examination Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal categorically stated that he worked for M/s Raj Ratan Industries and not for the appellant. (vi) The learned Commissioner has wrongly held that the Directors of the Companies accepted contents of the loose slips but none of the directors of the company have accepted the contents of the loose slips. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant, he has submitted that from the office or residential premises of the appellants including their manufacturing facility no documents were recovered and entire case is based on third party evidence. He further submitted that the appellants and its Managing Director have not accepted the contents of the said loose slips. He has fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged clandestine quantity is dealt with in paras 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. It is alleged that the appellant cleared 9202 MT of M.S. Ingots to M/s Ram Shiv Industries as reflected in the 23 loose slips and further stated that 2175 MT was recorded clearance. Therefore, it is alleged that unaccounted clearance by appellant to M/s Ram Shiv Industries on the basis of 23 loose slips was 7027 MT. It is further alleged that unaccounted sale to M/s Anil was 300 MT and same to M/s. Somani was 100 MT. Further it is alleged that unaccounted sale to M/s Vajay Ispat on the basis of said loose slips was 751 MT. The contents of loose slips have been given in para 6.1of the said show cause notice. It has been stated in said para 6.1 that Shri Pawan Agarwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paras 55 and 56 of ruling by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Flevel International (supra). Said paras 55 and 56 are reproduced below for appreciation: "55. Mr. Hari Shanker, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, has also drawn the attention of the Court to a decision of the CESTAT in Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II - 2014 (311) E.L.T. 529 (Tri.-Ahmd.) where the entire law concerning clandestine removal has been discussed and the legal position has been summarised as under : "(i) There should be tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance and not merely inferences or unwarranted assumptions; (ii) Evidence in support thereof should be of : (a) raw materials, in excess of that contained as ....