TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of principle of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1328-1329/2007 - A/71263-71264/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 11-10-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Sh. Bipin Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant(s) Sh. Mohd. Altaf, (AC) AR for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of duty has been confirmed along with interest and various penalties have been imposed on both the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing of M.S. Ingots. On 14.09.2004, the factory of the appellants were visited and it was found that Sh. Mewal Das, an employee was present who failed to produced t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the basis of the statement of Sh. Sourabh Jain and Sh. Mewal Dass and on the basis of panchnama, the case was booked against the appellants alleging that they are engaged in the activity of clandestinely clearance of finish goods as well as they have taken Cenvat Credit on sponge iron which was not found in their factory and to impose the penalty on both the appellants. The matter was adjudicated and the allegations made in the show cause notice were affirmed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before me. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that no physical verification was conducted and stock verification was done only on eye estimation basis. It was also submitted that in cross-examination, Sh. Mewal Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Continental Cement Company Vs. UOI - 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All). 3. Vehalana Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (329) ELT 947 (Tri.). 4. Raj Ratan Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2013 (289) ELT 482 (Tri). 5. Everest Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2013(292) ELT 397 (Tri.) Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 5. On the other hand Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. I find that the appellants have challenged the method of stock taking done during the course of investigation and accordingly panchnama was drawn. The appellant was also sought that the cross-examination of punch witnesses, which the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
