TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be held against the appellant. It is well settled law that there has to be some concrete evidence which would show clandestine manufacture of goods, as was reiterated by Tribunal, Delhi in the case of C.C.E. S.T. -RAIPUR VERSUS P.D. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [ 2015 (11) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . The order confirming the recovery has no legal basis to sustain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 51229 of 2019 [SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 51186/2021 - Dated:- 23-3-2021 - HON BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Jwaria Kainaat, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER RACHNA GUPTA: Appellants herein are the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.2016 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of Central Excise duty of ₹ 24,52,947/- from them alongwith the interest and the penalty on the appellant company and penalty on the Director Shri Mahender Gupta. The said proposal was initially dropped by the Assistant Commissioner, Raipur vide order No.06/ADJ/AC/RD-II 2018 dated 17.04.2018. Against the said Order-in-Original, Department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), however, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal allowed the appeals filed by Department. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Mr. Bipin Garg s Junior (Ms. Jwaria Kainaat), ld. Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Tamanna Alam, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Bajrangbali Ingots Steel Pvt. Ltd. Suresh Agarwal vs. CCE, Raipur in Appeal No. E/52062 52066/2018 heard on 16.11.2018, which is held as follows:- 9. The law i.e. as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is well established. Reference can be made to Hon ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) as also Tribunal s decision in the case of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-I 2016 (335) ELT 297 (Tri.-Del.), CCE ST, Raipur Vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE ST, Ludhiana Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alleged removals, the department has not investigated the following aspects : (i) To find out the excess production details. (ii) To find out whether the excess raw materials have been purchased. (iii) To find out the dispatch particulars from the regular transporters. (iv) To find out the realization of sale proceeds. (v) To find out finished product receipt details from regular dealers/buyers. (vi) To find out the excess power consumptions. 13. Thus, to prove the allegation of clandestine sale, further corroborative evidence is also required. For this purpose no investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
