9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its impugned order in original dated 11.01.2018 is justified in confirming the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,56,803./- alongwith interest and penalty, in respect of clandestine removal of 80.695 the MT of M.S Ingots recovered from the appellant - M/s. Ashok Ispat Udyog of which the Appellant- Vijay Chand Bothra is Director. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. A Show Cause Notice dated 21.06.2010 was issued to the appellant proposing as under: i. Demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,29,78,297/-, quantified on the basis of excess electricity consumption, including the duty of Rs. 2,56,803/-, involved in 80.695 MT of M.S. Ingots, entries of which was found recorded in the diaries of Noticee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order nowhere it has been discussed as to how the demand of duty of Rs. 2,56,803/- is sustainable in the absence of any clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods and in view of the fact that the said amount is also included in Rs. 3,29,78,297/- which has been dropped. There is absolute no evidence on record to show that the appellant-Ms. Ashok Ispat Udyog had cleared 80.695 MT of MS ingots and entire demand is purely based upon the statement of Sh. S.K. Pansari Prop. of M/s. Monu Steel. There is no evidence accept the said statement and private dairy of third party i.e. of Sh. S.K. Pansari which contains the name of the appellant. 6. Only on the basis of statement of third person no demand could be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97 (Tri.-Del.), CCE & ST, Raipur Vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE & ST, Ludhiana Vs. Anand Founders & Engineers - 2016 (331) ELT 340 (P&H). It stand held in all these judgements that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents, unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. In the absence of any corroborative evidence and in view of the law declared in the above decisions, I find no justifiable reasons to uphold the impugned orders. Accordingly, the same are set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 7. In view of the above facts of the case and in view of the settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
