TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... els. The appellant, Shri S K Pansari, proprietor of said propriety concern who apparently and admittedly was working as commission agent between the sellers and buyers of iron and steel products and used to get commission from either the seller or buyer or from both of them depending upon the finalisation of the deal and the nature of goods - But it is observed that the documents and statement based where upon were the demands against others including other manufacturers or raw material providers were of M/s. Monu Steel and Shri S K Pansari, the present appellant. Those orders are passed based upon the fact that the demand cannot be confirmed based upon such a record which was not recovered from the concerned assessee but from the possessio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 021 and 50679/2021 - FINAL ORDER No. 50013-50026/2022 - Dated:- 6-1-2022 - MRS RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Vinay K Jain, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ravi Kapoor, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER The present order dispose off 14 appeals with such orders-in-original as mentioned above. 2. Above all appeals are being decided by the common order as all these appeals arise out of common search for similar demand on same allegations. The appellants otherwise has applied for settlement under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. However, the discharge certificate has not been issued in their favour for want of requisite payments to be made prior to issue of discharge certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of requisite duty against the clearance of impugned final goods along with the penalty which was also proposed to be imposed. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the respective Order in Originals as mentioned above. 3. I have heard Shri Vinay K Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Ravi Kapoor, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Order under challenge has been passed without appreciating the facts and the evidence. The elaborate reply to the respective show cause notices were submitted by the appellants denying the allegations. Demand still has been confirmed merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions and without eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable for the present appellant. It is submitted that the consumption of electricity was always known and could have easily be inquired by the Departmental Authorities. Such details are otherwise not to be furnished specifically, hence non submission of few details cannot amount to suppression of facts. Decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. vs. CCE Bombay reported as [1995 (78) ELT 401] has been impressed upon. Decision of Tribunal Bangalore in the case of GTN ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. CCE, Calicut [2006 (200) ELT 76] has also been impressed upon. Imposition of penalty has also been challenged while relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Veer Bahadur Products vs. CCE Kanpur reported as [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e production and clandestinely removing their product without payment of Central Excise duty and without issuance of Central Excise invoices. Hence there is no infirmity in the Order under challenge. Appeals are accordingly prayed to be allowed. 8. After hearing the rival contentions, perusing the entire records I observe and hold as follows: The Department conducted investigation in this case with the search in the premises of M/s. Monu Steels. The appellant, Shri S K Pansari, proprietor of said propriety concern who apparently and admittedly was working as commission agent between the sellers and buyers of iron and steel products and used to get commission from either the seller or buyer or from both of them depending upon the final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt s premises when got compared with the electricity consumption record and the production record of the appellant it correctly led the adjudicating authority to conclude the suppression of production of M S Ingots by the Appellant and clandestinely removing those ingots without proper assessment and payment of duty. Not only this statement of Shri S K Pansari has sufficient admission for the alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of excise duty. The statement being given to Customs Officer is very much admissible in evidence. Reliance upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Jethmal vs Union of India reported in [1999 (110) ELT 379 (SC)] is held as correct. There is otherwise no retraction ever been made by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
