9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANTY Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS strips, MS Flats, MS tubes, galvanized Pipe falling under Chapter 72-73 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For manufacture of the said final products, the appellant used sponge iron scrap, pig iron and steel ingots as raw-material. The appellant avails the benefit of Cenvat Credit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of both the finished products and the rawmaterial. Further, the show cause notice also proposed to demand Central Excise duty on HR strips on the ground of clandestine removal. The show cause notice dated 05.07.2016 issued by the Department was adjudicated vide order dated 23.02.2017, wherein Central Excise Duty demand of Rs. 98,201/- was confirmed on 30.450 M.T. of HR Strips removed from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that the physical verification report relied on by the Department has not been signed either by the appellant or by the Department. Thus, he submits that based on the unsigned statement, the duty demand cannot be sustained. It is his further submission that since the Department has not specifically produced any material evidence to show clandestine removal of goods from the factory, the charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tracted by the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. On perusal of the case records, I find that based on the statement of availability of raw-material and finished goods, the Department has prepared the Panchnama on 9/10.02.2016. However, on perusal of such statement, I find that it has neither been signed by the appellant nor by Officers conducting the search in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that such submissions of the appellant had not been addressed at all by both the authorities below. In this case, the Department has not specifically brought out any evidence of fact of clandestine removal of goods, with the help of any tangible evidence. Thus, the onus lies on the Department to prove clandestine removal of goods having not been satisfied/ fulfilled in this case, the charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
