TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no evidence expect the said statement and private dairy entry of 3rd party i.e. of Sh. S.K. Pansari which contains the name of the appellant. The law as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence on any corroborative evidence, is well settled. Only on the basis of statement of third party no demand can be made. Recently, this tribunal in the case of Arora (CG) Energy & Steel P. Ltd., Vs. CCE & ST Raipur [2018 (6) TMI 1484 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has set aside the demand since the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the entries made in the records of M/s. Monu Steel without there being any corroborative evidence. The penalty imposed on Sh.Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him. 3. So far as the statement of Shri Sapan Khetan is concerned, while going through the same, I found that he nowhere acknowledge the clearance of 580.950 MTs of MS ingots. Rather he stated as under:- That they had not cleared/ removed MS ingots through the said commission agent, without issue of sales invoices or without payment of Central Excise duty. In respect of all the clearances of MS ingots they had issued Central Excise invoices and had removed the goods on payment of duty. 4. The finding of the Ld. Principle Commissioner about the statement of Shri Sapan Khetan in para 3.5.12 of the impugned order is based upon the mis-interpretation of his following statement:- That he has seen and gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter. 8. Since some of the manufactures i.e. M/s. Sh. Shyam Ingot and Casting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Nutan Ispat Power Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, whose names were also found in the dairy recovered from Sh. S.K. Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel, accepted their irregularities and admitted the duty liability, therefore no corroboration was required in those cases. But in the present case the appellant did not admit the liability and rather submitted that the Revenue has not adduced any corroborative evidence to show the movement of the goods from the premises of the appellant to the premises of any buyers or the customers nor they brought on record any evidence as to whose is buyers of the goods allegedly sold through M/s Monu Steel. The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve categorically held 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. 11. In an identical matter this tribunal vide its order dated 04.04.2018 in Appeal No. E/50526-50527/2018 SM titled as, Shree Consultants Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C.E. S.T. Raipur set aside the demand which was also made only on the basis of the entries made in the records of M/s. Monu Steel and held as under: xxx xxx xxx 4. I find that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the records recovered from M/s Monu Steels. Even in those records, the appellant s name has not been spelt correctly and it is based upon the statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same are set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Similarly this tribunal in the matter of Excise Appeal No. E/50874/2018-Ex [SM] M/s. Ashok Ispat Udyo Vs.Comm. of C.Ex., CGST, Raipur Excise Appeal No. E/50812/2018-Ex [SM] M/s. Vijay Chand Bothra Vs. Comm. of C.Ex., CGST, Raipur, set aside the demand since the same was based only upon the diary entries of Sh. S.K.Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel without their being any corroborative evidence. 12. Recently also this tribunal in a batch of matters being Appeal Nos. E/51117-51118/2018-SM and E/50940, 51236, 51241/2018 Arora (CG) Energy Steel P. Ltd., Vs. CCE ST Raipur vide common order dated 15.06.2018 set aside the demand sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
