TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LIMITED, PRAGATI INGOTS POWER PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX [ 2019 (8) TMI 1022 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] with respect to the same Show Cause Notice as has been adjudicated vide the impugned order under challenge. The present appeal is before Single Bench because quantum of demand against the impugned appellant falls within the jurisdiction of Single Bench. Reliability on third party documents - HELD THAT:- The reliance of third party documents while conforming demand against present appellant is also observed to be unjustified and unreasonable. Since the sole challenge to the order is its reliance upon third party evidence, it is necessary to check the evidentiary value of the third party evidence. Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing Registration No. CG 04 H1321 and was found owned by Shri Om Prakash Sai, Accountant of M/s. M/s. Hariom Ingots Power Private Limited. Some computer data as maintained in Tally Software for the period 2009-10 2011-12 alongwith sale and purchase data maintained in ERP System were also retrieved from the Computer in the premises of M/s. Hariom Ingots Power Private Limited. 2.2 Based thereupon and after recording the statements even of the transporters that a Show Cause Notice bearing No.44/4123 dated 6 May, 2016 was served not only upon M/s. Hariom Ingots but all those whose names found reflected in the recovered documents and the recorded statements including the present appellant. A demand of ₹ 13,62,40,831/- under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision with the prayer for the impugned appeal to be allowed in terms of the said decision. 5. Learned Departmental Representative has acknowledged the aforesaid Final Order to have already been passed in favour of few of the Noticees of the impugned Show Cause Notice. However, it was brought to the notice subsequently that the Department has filed an appeal against the said order. It was also brought to the notice that appeals of remaining 12 Notices are still pending consideration before this Tribunal. 6. After hearing the learned Counsels and learned D.R. and after perusing the order dated 22.08.2019 as has been e-mailed to us , it is observed and held as follows:- 6.1 Vide the aforesaid order being passed by Division Bench, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments recovered from the Car of the Accountant of M/s.Hariom Ingots was brought on record. While relying upon various case laws in the case of CCE vs. Kuber Tobacco Products Ltd. reported in 2016 (339) ELT A-130, CCE vs. Vishnu Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2015 TIOL 2792 HC DEL CX and M/s. G-Tech Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (339) ELT (P H), it was held that lack of proper estimation and requisite documents, there remains no cogent evidence to prove the charges of clandestine removal. The noncompliance of Section 36B of the Excise Act by the Department has been made the reason to extend the benefit to the Noticees of the impugned Show Cause Notice. 7. In the present appeal, there is no additional document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 9. In the given circumstances, I observe no reason to differ from the findings that have already been arrived at by a Division Bench on the same set of allegation and the same set of evidences. Being bound by the said findings, I hereby hold that Department has failed to prove the allegations against the present appellant. Being bound by the said findings, I hereby hold that Department has failed to prove the allegations against the present appellant. 9.1 The confirmation of duty demand of ₹ 15, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
