1997 (3) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t memo. He submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots and steel castings. He submits that the appellants purchased scrap and other inputs for the manufacture of MS ingots and steel casting. During the course of audit, they observed that in terms of the Director of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise vide his letter F.No. 503/52/69, dated 20-6-1971 the normal recovery of metal should not be less than 87% of raw material used in the manufacture of steel ingots. He submits that the audit on the basis of the raw material used calculated certain figure of production and observed that production to the extent of 849.364 MTs. was recorded short by taking the recovery at 87%. The ld. Counsel submitted that the fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has been made out by the deptt. 3. Arguing further the ld. Counsel submits that there was no suppression, misstatement etc. in the instant case inasmuch as RT 5 returns showing procurement of raw material and its use as also RT 12 returns showing the production of MS ingots/steel castings were being submitted to the authorities from time to time and therefore, there was absolutely no misstatement or suppression of the facts. The ld. Counsel therefore, submitted that the question of demand pertained to the period July 1986 to October, 1990. Show cause notice was issued on 8-11-1991 therefore, the entire demand was hit by limitation and was time-barred. Ld. Counsel submits that from whichever angle we look at the demand, the demand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in excess were clandestinely removed from the appellants' factory. Thus I agree with the ld. Counsel that the entire case is based on presumption and surmises. I hold that the case of clandestine removal should be proved up to hilt, it should not be based on surmises, presumption and conjectures. I do not see any single piece of evidence on record to prove that 849.364 MTs. of MS ingots/steel castings were produced. In the absence of any evidence and in view of the fact that the law is well settled on the issue, I hold that no case has been made out by the deptt. insofar as the clandestine production/removal of 849.364 MTs. of MS ingots/steel castings are concerned. 6. The ld. Counsel also argued the question of limitation. On the....