TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord by the Revenue, the demand on the basis of this allegation is not sustainable - demand set aside. Demand confirmed on the basis of the records seized from transporter viz. M/s. Super Handling Company showing the goods has been cleared without duty paying documents - Held that: - seized documents neither showing the date of goods sold nor the date has been mentioned to whom the goods has been sent and the appellant had not admitted those documents no enquiry has been conducted from M/s. Super Handling Company where these goods have been delivered or whether these goods have been loaded from the factory of the appellant without cover of invoice - demand set aside. Demand confirmed on the basis of the production shown in private records but not recorded in RG-1 register - Held that: - no effort has been made by the Revenue for correlation of the payments made to the four labour contractors and merely on the basis of the 3rd party evidence, the demand against the appellant is not sustainable - demand set aside. Demand confirmed on account of excess finished goods found and detected shortage of inputs at the time of stock taking during the search - Held that: - There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order wherein demand of duty has been confirmed on the basis of certain discrepancies found during the course of investigation along with interest and penalties were imposed on all the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of re-rolled products of iron and steel like shapes and sections, MS squares, CTD bars, MS flats etc. On 29.8.1995, one truck carrying finished goods was intercepted which was not accompanying any documents. The truck was brought back to the factory premises of the appellant wherein documents related to the said goods were found. Thereafter, the factory premises of the appellants were examined and various discrepancies were found. On the basis of those discrepancies, it was concluded that the appellants are engaged in the activity of clandestine removal of goods and availing Cenvat credit without bringing inputs in their factory. Consequently, the duty was demanded along with interest and penalties on all the appellants were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before me. 3. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, the matter was rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said demand sought to be confirmed on the basis of the goods sold to M/s Malhotra Steel Product through the commission agent viz. M/s. Ashish Udyog who raised the debit notes for payment/commission to the appellant and in the debit notes instead of MS square the commission agent mentioned the commission for MS ingots. Therefore, it was alleged that as the appellant has cleared MS ingots for which they have paid commission to M/s Ashish Udyog therefore, on the quantity sold through Ashish Udyog is without payment of duty. In reply, the appellant has given explanation that they are not having any manufacturing facility for MS ingots and M/s Ashish Udyog inadvertently written as MS ingots instead of MS square and no investigation has been conducted at the end of M/s. Malhotra Steel Product to ascertain the fact, whether they have received MS ingots instead of MS square under the cover of invoices or not? In the absence of any positive evidence on record by the Revenue, the demand on the basis of this allegation is not sustainable. Therefore, the demand of duty of ₹ 2,78,617/- is set aside. (iv) A demand of ₹ 2,11,273/- has been confirmed on the basis of the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interest. Revenue sought to include the payment of interest in the assessable value. The said issue has not been disputed by the ld. Counsel for the appellant being the issue of valuation. Therefore, the said demand of ₹ 1,16,542/- has been confirmed against the appellant. (viii) A demand of ₹ 61,824/- sought to be confirmed on account of invoices issued to consignee for availing Modvat credit without supply of inputs. I find that on this issue, the goods have been transferred from Bhilai Steel Plant to the appellant and during the transportation, in between, the goods have been unloaded from the truck and loaded in the another truck which reached to appellant s factory and to that effect the appellant has produced documents for loading and unloading of the goods in question in another truck. No investigation has been conducted at the end of Bhilai Steel Plant to ascertain the fact whether they have sold the goods to the appellant through the truck in question or from the transporter whether they have changed the truck during the transportation. In that circumstances, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, the demand of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
