9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise duty, the main raw material for which is steel scrap. Shri Jiwan Singla and Shri Ratan Goyal are the Directors of the appellant company. On receipt of intelligence that the appellant company is evading excise duty by under reporting their production and clandestine clearances, the factory premises of the appellant company along with residential premises of the Director Shri Jiwan Singla were searched by the offices of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) on 13/2/09. In the course of search of factory premises in the presence of Shri S.P. Gupta, Authorised Signatory of the appellant company, it was found that - (a) there was shortage of 77 M.T. of imported HM scrap involving Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,20,551/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge iron and other material purchased in cash, during the period from November 2008 to January 2009 was Rs. 4,43,89,566/-. The quantity of scrap/ sponge iron was estimated to be 2595 MT. None of these purchases of scrap/sponge iron were reflected in the RG-23A register and it appeared that the M.S. Ingots manufactured from this unaccounted kabari scrap/sponge iron had been cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. Inquiries were also made with Shri Darshan Singh, Purchase Supervisor of the appellant company who in his statement dated 21.04.2009 corroborated the statement of Shri S.P. Gupta. Shri Jiwan Singla in his statements dated 16.02.2010 and 02.07.2010 could not give any explanation for the above unaccounted purchases of scrap and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11A (1) along with interest on it under Section 11AB (d) appropriation of an amount of Rs. 16,20,551/- (Rs. 15,00,000/- + Rs. 1,20,551/-) already paid by the appellant during investigation against their duty liability ; and (e) imposition of penalty on the appellant company under Section 11AC and on its Director Shri Jiwan Singla under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 19.01.2012 by which - (a) while the duty demand of Rs. 12,25,700/- was dropped, the duty demand of Rs. 86,63,220/- (Rs. 84,14,141/- + Rs. 2,49,079/-) was confirmed along with interest and the amount of Rs. 16,20,551/- already paid was appropriated towards thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side. It is further submitted that as the appellant has already reversed the credit availed on imported scrap, to the tune of Rs. 2,49,079/- therefore, on the said quantity, duty cannot be demanded from the appellant. 6. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides. Considering the fact that, as contended by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that statement of Shri S.P. Gupta and Shri Darshan Singh heavily relied by the adjudicating authority and the procedure laid down under Section 9D of the Act is violated, in that circumstance, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the matter is required to be re-examined in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
