9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e recovered and seized. During search, allegedly a chit showing clearance of the goods of Sponge Iron during the period from January, 2009 to December 2009 was recovered from one Shri Partha Banerjee, General Manager of the Appellant Company. From the Chit, it was inferred that a quantity of 2017.625 MT of Sponge Iron clearing without payment of duty of Rs.19,85,355/-. Stock verification was also done for raw material and it was found that there is shortage of 7664.786 MT of Iron Ore. Statement of Shri Partha Banerjee, General Manager of the Appellant Company was recorded and agreed with the said clearance of 2017.625 MT of Sponge Iron. During search of the Office premises of M/s Sen Brothers Enterprises, some private documents were recovered and seized. Statement of Shri Sisir Mondal, Employee of M/s Sen Brothers Enterprises was recorded and he stated that the documents seized were related to the appellant and were prepared for keeping records. 2.1 On 08.07.2010, the statement of Shri Swapan Kumar Sen, employee of M/s Sen Brothers Enterprises and Ex-Director of the appellant, was recorded. 2.2 On 11.10.2010, the statement of Shri Bijoy Kumar Bhalotia, Director of the Appellant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no corroborative evidence in respect of manufacture of goods, transportation of the goods, identification of buyers, flow of funds and procurement of huge quantity of raw-materials required etc. and the statements were retracted by Shri Partha Banerjee, General Manager of the appellant, even if there is admission that would require corroboration in case of clandestine removal since oral evidence is not be sufficient. Finally, he submits that the Adjudicating Authority did no advert on the decisions cited by the appellant which makes the Order non-speaking and the Adjudicating Authority did not supply the records as stated in the reply to the showcause notice and no entries in the statutory records tallies with the entries in the private records. 3.1 To support his contentions, he relies on the following decisions : 1. Star Alloys & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. : 2019 (21) GSTL 174 (Tri. - Del.) 2. Raipur Forgings Pvt. Ltd. : 2016 (336) ELT 297 ( Tri. - Del.) 3. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. : 2016 (334) ELT 594 (All.) 4. T.G.L. Poshok Corporation : 2002 (140) ELT 187 (Tri. - Chennai) 5. Continental Cement Co. : 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) 6. A.R. Shanmu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handwriting, therefore the allegation that the Chit shows clandestine clearance of goods is not established as per the said Chit. 8. In that circumstances, we hold that the demand on the basis of Chit is not sustainable. 9. In respect of remaining demand, we find that during the course of investigation, it was alleged that there was a shortage of 7664.786 MT of Iron Ore, but the appellant contended that no weighment was made and verification was done only on eye estimation basis. Although, the appellant was having their own weighing machine but one Shri Nader Chandra Roy looking after Central Excise matters was asked to prepare weighment slip showing 133.05 MT and arrived at shortage of the aforesaid quantity. The said weighment was shown as weighment of Iron Ore, but the statement was recorded of Shri N.C.Roy, who in his Affidavit, stated that no weighment was made. The appellant has also given a letter dated 07.05.2010 showing sale of sponge iron of 2912.580 MT before visit of the Officers of the Department, which was not considered. By another letter, the Director of the appellant explained the details of the goods in the factory and the manner of stock verification on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal held that the clandestine removal cannot be upheld on the basis of documents recovered from the third party premises or shortages detected at the time of visit without any other documents cannot be the reasons for inferring clandestine removal. 16. In the case of Raipur Forgings Private Limited (supra), this Tribunal held that the admission by the Director of firm gives strong indication of clandestine activity but the same would not be conclusive evidence without any corroboration. 17. Further, in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited (Supra), this Tribunal held that to allege clandestine removal of goods, there should be clinching evidence in the nature of purchase of raw materials and removal of final product and there should be an investigation to that effect.. 18. Further, in the case of A.R.Shanmugasundaram (supra), the Tribunal held that it is settled law that the charge of clandestine removal is not sustainable merely on the basis of statement and private records unless corroborated with other evidences. 19. Further, in the case of Gopi Synthetics Private Limited (supra), this Tribunal held that onus to prove clandestine removal of goods and the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
