TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s observed that though the appellant company has taken this stand since the beginning, even during the course of investigation, the Revenue has not controverted these facts. The documents resumed by the Revenue and relied upon in show cause notice, also supports this fact - Thus where the amount of duty has been deposited by the suppliers, the duty liability of the appellant company is ordered to be reduced by the said amount. Sale of M.S. Flats as such - HELD THAT:- The records resumed by the officers and relied upon in show cause notice and the impugned order clearly show purchase of M.S. Flats by the appellant company. This is evident from the profit loss account of the appellant company scanned in the show cause notice itself. Once the Revenue has placed reliance on resumed documents and data retrieved from laptop, it cannot claim that M.S. Flats were not purchased and sold as such. The documents have to be believed in toto and not in part only. Further, the Revenue has not brought any material to show that the purchased M.S. flat were used in or in relation to manufacture of any other product - thus duty of excise is not demandable from the appellant company, on the quant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and excess in the stock of raw material. The officers also seized cash ₹ 12,00,000/- from the residence of Shri Satish Kumar, Director of the Applicant. On the basis of the statements of Directors of the Applicant and resumed documents, statements of 5 suppliers of raw materials were recorded wherein they accepted the supply of raw materials without invoice to the Applicant and without payment of Central Excise duty. These five raw material suppliers also deposited ₹ 36.90 Lakhs towards their duty liability. 4. A show cause notice dated 04.08.2014 was issued to the Appellants/Applicants for demanding Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 3,00,18,268/- for the period May, 2011 to September, 2012 for removing the goods valued @ ₹ 27.39 Crores and for imposing penalties on directors, former director and Manager of the Applicant. It is mentioned in S.C.N that the duty liability has been calculated after deducting the sale value shown by the Applicant in its Central Excise Records, from the sale reflected in the Tally data (from computer) recovered. The learned Commissioner has passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 4.5.2016 confirming the proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only part of the data resumed from the appellants, and these 5 supplies had accepted and deposited a sum of ₹ 36.90 lakh towards duty. Since these 5 suppliers had deposited duty amounting to ₹ 36.90 lakhs with the department, the benefit of said duty should be extended to the appellant company, and its duty liability should be reduced by the said amount. 9. The learned Advocate contended that those suppliers were, however, not confronted with the following purchase figure shown in the records of the appellant company. Sl. No. Name of supplier Amount (Rs.) 1 M/s DSR Steel Pvt. Limited 90,59,260/- 2 M/s Shree jagdamba Castings (P) Ltd., 26,09,441/- 3 M/s Young Steels (P) Ltd., 24,89,273/- 4 M/s Ramayana Ispat (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flats has been taken from the records maintained in the laptop only for confirming demand of duty. Moreover, there is no evidence that these flats were used by the appellant company in the manufacture of any goods. The learned Advocate pleaded that duty involved on flats sold as such is ₹ 15,06,191/- for 2011-12 and ₹ 1,66,991/- for 2012-13 which is liable to be reduced from the duty demanded in the impugned order. 14. Similarly the appellant company has sold Miss Rolls as such during 2012-13 involving Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 6,13,209/- which is also not demandable from the appellant company, it being not the manufacturer of the said miss rolls. 15. The learned Advocate submitted that since the penalty has been imposed on the appellant company, separate penalty is not imposable on Directors and Managers. 16. The learned Advocate further refers to the miscellaneous application. With a view to keep peace of mind, the appellant agrees to pay the duty amount after adjusting the amount paid by the appellant, seized by the officers, recovered from the suppliers of raw materials and also demand made on trading activitie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of justice and in view of the fact that the appellant company, is not contesting the duty liability as they want peace of mind, we find substance and force in their submissions. However, where the amount of duty has been deposited by the suppliers, the duty liability of the appellant company is ordered to be reduced by the said amount. But in cases where demand of duty has only been confirmed and not deposited by the suppliers, such amount cannot be allowed to be deducted, at this stage. However, as and when such duty is deposited by the suppliers, the Revenue may refund such amount to the appellant company, as per Rules. 20. Regarding sale of M.S. Flats as such, we observe that the records resumed by the officers and relied upon in show cause notice and the impugned order clearly show purchase of M.S. Flats by the appellant company. This is evident from the profit loss account of the appellant company scanned in the show cause notice itself. Once the Revenue has placed reliance on resumed documents and data retrieved from laptop, it cannot claim that M.S. Flats were not purchased and sold as such. The documents have to be believed in toto and not in part only. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
