TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... practical difficulties, in estimating the actual stock and in view of the submissions made by the appellants, we find that the demand of duty made by the adjudicating authority cannot be sustained - there are no reason to interfere with such detailed findings. Accordingly, we dismiss the Appeal filed by the Revenue on merits. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Coming to the issue of limitation raised by the Respondent, it is found that neither have they filed any appeal against the impugned OIO on this specific issue nor have they filed any Cross Objection against the Appeal filed by the Revenue on the issue of time bar. Therefore, this issue need no further discussion. The Revenue s Appeal is dismissed on merits. - HON BLE MR. R. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that based on the volumetric weight, the monthly consumption of iron ore is worked out by them, which is recorded by them in the monthly ER- 6 Returns. At the end of the year, they get the entire stock verified by their Auditors and based on the actual figure, they show the consumption in the Annual ER-4 Return. He submits that the very fact that they have correctly reflected the consumption after the audit conducted by their statutory Auditors in the ER-4 Return shows that there was no suppression on their part and clarifies their bonafides. Further he submits that the likely manufacture of steel articles have been hypothetically worked out by the Department by directly t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing to gain by indulging in any activities amounting to suppression for evading any Excise Duty payment. Further as all the details were available with audit team by November-December 2009, the Department was bound to issue the Show Cause Notice within one year from the date of such knowledge. In view of these, he submits that the allegations in the Show Cause Notice do not survive on account of limitation. Therefore, he submits that even on this account, the Revenue s Appeal is required to be dismissed. 7. Heard both sides and perused the Appeal papers and submissions made by both sides. 8. We find that the allegation proceeds on the assumption that the differential consumption between ER-4 and ER-6 Returns has resulted in manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss on account of handling of the iron ore at different points of handling inside the plant and certain invisible loss due to moisture etc. They have also submitted that they produce 1 MT of hot metal from 1.566 MT of iron ore and not saleable steel as mistakenly construed by the Department in the SCN. The iron ore is first converted into hot metal and thereafter the hot metal is converted into steel. Quantum of iron ore required for producing saleable steel depends on a number of factors including Fe content in the iron ore. 14. I observe that the show cause notice, while alleging higher quantity of production of steel, has not adduced any further evidence, direct or circumstantial to support the Department‟s contention. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put-output ratio. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the party with the following observation; 7. In this connection, it is observed that the charges of clandestine removal is a serious and it must be proved with substantive evidence. Merely because, as noticee changes ratio of tobacco in the biris he cannot be said to have been indulged in clandestine removal of biris. Some other substantive evidence showing excess manufacture of biris, and removal of the same has to be adduced to establish the charge of clandestine removal... 17. Further, as per SAIL v. CCE 2006 (200) ELT 229 (CESTAT) In any case, the shortage arrived at is based on estimates. The estimate cannot be said to be very accurate, as it has got its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting for quantity produced or issued in the form of sections and ingots. Shortage is inflated due to errors in taking opening balance as on 1-4-1998 and physical stock on 31-3-2001. Considering the practical difficulties, in estimating the actual stock and in view of the submissions made by the appellants, we find that the demand of duty made by the adjudicating authority cannot be sustained. Therefore, we allow the appeal with consequential relief. 18. In view of above discussion and decisions of various higher courts, demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 82,68,81,301/- is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied] 10. We do not find any reason to interfere with such detailed findings. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
