TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be re-examined in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - directed to examine whether the appellant is having the capacity to manufacture such a huge quantity in such a short span of time and from where the electricity was procured to manufacture such a huge quantity and how the stock verification was done.- appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/787-788/2012-DB - Final Order No. 62413-62414 / 2018 - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Jagmmohan Bansal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Harvinder Singh, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments made for purchase of scrap and also the details of cash payments received for the period from November 2008 to January 2009. The name of the persons to whom the cash payments had been made were written in abbreviation as - Jolly , Sanjay , Jindal , and Manjeet . Shri S.P. Gupta in his statement dated 13.02.2009 stated that these accounts have been written by him, that while Jolly is the scrap supplier, Manjeet, Jindal and Sanjay are the suppliers of sponge iron scrap and other materials. Summons were issued to the above persons at their addresses as disclosed by Shri S.P. Gupta. While Manjeet, Sanjay and Jindal did not respond, Jolly alias Dushyant Bhardwaj appeared before the investigating officers and stating that he is a comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as indulging in evasion of duty during 2007-2008 also. The duty involved on the goods cleared clandestinely during 2007-2008 was estimated to be ₹ 12,25,700/-. 3. In view of the above investigation, a show cause notice dated 05.08.2010 was issued to the appellant company and its Director, Shri Jiwan Singla for - (a) recovery of Central excise duty amounting to ₹ 84,14,141/- during November 2008 - January 2009 period in respect of clandestine clearance of 2466 M.T. of M.S. Ingots under proviso to Section 11 (1) along with interest on this duty under Section 11AB (b) recovery of Central excise duty amounting to ₹ 12,57,700/- in respect of finished goods valued at ₹ 85 lakhs cleared clandestinely during 2007-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d these statements have never been examined as per the procedure laid down under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the light of decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of M/s. Ambika International vs. UOI (in Civil Appeal No. 12615 of 2016) vide order dated 17.06.2016. He further submitted that during the course of adjudication, the statement of Shri Jolly was cross examined and the cross examination has been discarded by the adjudicating authority. In fact, the cross-examination has revealed the truth of the case and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. It is his prayer that it is a case of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
