9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were indulging in suppression of production and clandestine removal of bars/ rods, that the premises of SSSRM was searched on 10.09.2005. Certain loose documents were recovered from the premises under resumption memo prepared on the spot on 10.09.2005 itself. Some other documents in the form of hand written ledger books pertaining to the period from April, 2005 were also recovered on the same date from the same premises. After examination of various records with respect to the documents recovered, show cause notice dated 12.06.2009 was served upon the Company as well as the appellant being the Director thereof. Duty of Rs. 2,63,42,989/- was demanded, alleging to have not been paid on 9551.278 MT of M. S. Ingots was proposed to be paid along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that excise returns were being filed regularly by the appellant. All facts and figures were regularly being noticed by the Department. Hence, Department has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation. The demand is liable to be set aside on this score as well. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also impressed upon that the demand of the impugned Show Cause Notice against the main Noticee i.e. M/s. Rajasthan Industrial Gases Ltd. has already been dropped vide Final Order No.51225/2021 dated 05.4.2021 in Appeal No. E/52064/2-19 (SM). Learned Counsel accordingly, prayed for allowing the appeal. 4. Learned Authorised Representative Ms. Tamanna Alam on the other hand rebutted the submissions. It is mentioned that the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the order-in-original it is observed that the demand against the appellant has been confirmed solely on the ground that the Director of the appellant could not indicate any reason as to why the entries in the private record of SSSRM mention appellant's name. The said finding are held to be definite presumptive findings. The order is not discussing any documents recovered from the premises of the appellant or from the premises of M/s. RIGL from which could be proved the alleged clandestine removal on part of the appellant. No doubt the adjudicating authority, while confirming the demand has relied upon the statement of the present appellant. But the perusal of the statement as find mention in Order-in-Original reflects a clear denial of is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gible 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. 8. I observe that the Adjudicating Authority below had no sufficient evidence except for some private record from the M/s.SSSRM premises. In the given circumstances and relying upon the above case laws, I am of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
