TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the Common Final Order Nos.1534 and 1535 of 2007 in Appeal No.E/500-501/2003/MAS, dated 27.12.2007, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that a show cause notice, dated 20.09.1999, has been issued by the Additional Director General of Anti Evasion, Chennai, to M/s.SVA Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd, Coimbatore, respondent in C.M.A.No.3330 of 2017 and M/s.Srinivasa Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., Coimbatore, respondent in C.M.A.No.3331 of 2017, alleging certain offences in the manufacture and clearance of iron and steel products, without accounting and without payment of duty, which resulted in Order-in-Original No.21 of 2002, on the file of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, dropping all further proceedings, initiated in the show cause notice, dated 20.09.1999. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred appeals in E/500 501/2003/MAS, before the CESTAT, Chennai. After considering the materials on record and submissions, CESTAT, Chennai, vide order, in Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant speaks of two Show Cause Notices issued and mentions that replies were furnished by the noticees. There is a reference to cross examination of various persons who had retracted their depositions made during investigation. 4. In para 10, the following account of the submissions by the Counsel for the notices is given:- During personal hearing on 29.4.2002, Shri Raghavan, Advocate, presented himself on behalf of the notices. He argued that the demand in the impugned SCN was not based on any material evidences recovered from the premises of the noticees and was merely based on receipt of CTD bars by some Kerala based dealers from the bill traders. He further stated that they had made prolonged correspondences with the department for providing them with copies of documents, but the Anti-Evasion directorate vide letter dated 28.7.200 had only replied that everything was available and it was for them to come and search the records and find out which was against the principle that a SCN should be self contained. He contested the allegation that the goods received by them under Rule 57 F (4) challans was more than what has been reflected in the 57F (4) challans. He furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran Roadways was never involved in transport of alleged unaccounted CTD bars. The Commissioner also observed that without any statement being recorded from Bill Traders, the SCN had sought to allege that those Bill Traders were not independent, but creations of SVA/SSRM. Such proposition was not agreeable. 11.2. With regard to the reason there was no response from the Bill Traders to the summons or to the newspaper advertisement did not infer that the bill traders never existed but were not available for enquiry. He further observed that the investigating officers ought to have verified the bona fides from Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) regarding the transactions and whether these Bill Traders filed returns and whether they had shown disposals for Form XX collected by them. There was no attempt in the SCN to determine quantity of unaccounted CTD bars manufactured through excess electricity consumption. The SCN stated at one side that Sri Jithu and Sri Sharma were planted names by SVA/SSRM and that nobody in that name existed. But in another part it has stated that statements from one Sri Jithendra Jain (known as Jithu) and Sri Chandrasekar Sharma were recorded. He also observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the statement of facts are shabbily drafted containing mostly allegations levelled in the show cause notice described as evidence without explaining how the same were dealt with in the adjudication order. No valid or cogent grounds worth the name are advanced in the appeal to assail the order sought to be vacated. The appeal is not accompanied by a paper book with copies of documents such as statements and other evidences relied upon in the adjudication proceedings. The appeal memorandum does not set out proper grounds but only offers shallow comments on a couple of observations contained in the impugned order. We reject the appeal on these grounds. 3. Being aggrieved by the common order made in Final Order Nos.1534 and 1535 of 2007, dated 27.12.2007, instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed, on the following substantial questions of law, (1) Whether the order of the adjudicating Authority/2nd respondent, is per se illegal and the findings recorded therein qua the appellant are perverse and unsustainable? (2) Whether the 2nd respondent is correct in passing an order rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that they could not comprehen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he show cause notice No.62 of 1999, dated 20.09.1999, issued by the Additional Director General of Anti Evasion, Chennai. CESTAT, Chennai, has considered the history of the case and after analyzing the evidence/statements, held that the appeal memorandum only reflects the comments and observations made in the adjudicating order. That apart, the CESTAT, Chennai, has held that there no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Order-in-Original. 6. Though Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the above judgments and submitted that the Tribunal did not assign valid reasons or indicated application of mind, but misdirected itself, by not applying the correct legal test and therefore, the findings are irrational or perverse, going through the entire material on record, we are of the view that both the Order-in-Original No.21/2002, dated 06.05.2002 and Final Order Nos.1534 and 1535 of 2007 in Appeal No.E/500-501/2003/MAS, dated 27.12.2007, do not attract rationality or perversity. 7. The burden to prove clandestine manufacture and removal is on the revenue. Direct evidence of clandestine removal would rarely be available and the standard of proof has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
