TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and the production norm is treated to be identical. The department has not taken this much of the evidence into account by alleging the clandestine removal on the part of the appellant. In the present appeal also, it is the allegation of the Department that the Appellant clandestinely removed the MS TMT/ bars, that would have been produced by the Appellant following the production norms as fixed by the SAIL for ISO companies - No evidence was led by the Department regarding use of raw material, electricity, sale of material or mode or transport nor any evidence was led to substantiate that the Appellant was using the same advanced technology as SAIL. The impugned demand is, therefore, not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1985. During the test check of the records of the Appellant by the officer of Accountant General (AG) it was found that the production norm fixed by the Steel Authority of India Limited for the production of MS bars/TMT bars from the billets/ingots should be 95 per cent per MT of ingots for the ISO license holder companies. AG Audit further observed that the assessee has consumed 217530.575 MT billets/ingots but produced only 199421.677 MT of bars during the year 2010-11 to 2012-13 against the required production of 206654.046 MT as per the norms fixed by M/s SAIL for all ISO license holder companies. Accordingly, there appeared to be a short production of 7232.376 MT of MS bars resulting into short levy of Rs. 2,66,26,722/- including ed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the use of raw material, electricity, sale of the raw material, mode of transport etc. to sustain alleged clandestine removal and covered by the decision of RA Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I - 2009 (237) ELT 674 (Tri.-Del) and Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.). We also find that the show cause notice proposed to follow the output norm being obtained by the SAIL which is highly complex integrated plant having latest technology and infrastructure. It is not possible for the unit like appellant to have as same technology and infrastructure as available to the SAIL in this case and the production norm is treated to be identical. The department has not taken this much of the evidence into account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
