2011 (4) TMI 1100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ms. Monica, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. - In this case the Revenue has made out a case against the Appellant, alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of Mild Steel Ingots during April 2005 to June 2005. It is relevant to note that the Appellants had installed induction furnace only in January 2005 and production of M. S. Ingots started from 31-1-2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent period and so for the impugned three months also payments should have been at this rate. Based on this calculation the SCN alleged that the Appellant had not accounted 2617.076 MTs of the total M. S. Ingots manufactured by it during the three months and the same was cleared without payment of duty. Hence duty to the extent of Rs. 73,25,719/- along with interest was demanded and corresponding p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t few months of the production when the factory faced teething problems in production process. 6. The main defenses of the Appellants are the following : (i)      During the impugned period the factory was facing teething problems in production processes and losses occurred at various stages of slag off, pouring, grinding, cutting melting heat treatment and gaug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a new factory is not reason enough to conclude that there was clandestine manufacture and removal. Considering the teething troubles that every factory faces in the initial months of commissioning in its production processes, something more will be required to shift the burden to the assesse to prove that there was no such clandestine activity. May be some of the other three evidences listed in SC....