TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal were searched. In the factory premises, the stock taking was done in course of which there was shortage of 935 M.T. of MS Ingots involving duty of Rs. 3,03,523/-. From the residential premises of Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, certain loose paper slips showing purchase of scrap during January 2007 to March 2007 were recovered. The loose slips indicated purchase of about 437.58 MT of scrap from various persons. 1.2 Thereafter further investigations were conducted regarding power consumption and it was found that while the power consumption in the appellants unit was in the rage of 990 units to 3703 units per MT, as per the technical opinion of Dr. N.K. Nakra of IIT Kanpur, the same should be in the range of 550 units t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand of Rs. 3,35,523/- in respect of 96.935 MT of MS Ingots found short, alongwith interest on this duty and also for imposition of penalty on the appellant company under Section 11AC. Beside this, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules on Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, Ms. Sunita Agarwal and Shri Saurabh Agarwal, Director was also sought to be imposed. 1.3 This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 05/4/13 by which he dropped the duty demand of Rs. 2,13,09,972/- on the ground that this portion of demand is based only on the electricity consumption being 1046 units per MT and duty demand cannot be confirmed on this basis. But he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 13,70,150/- on the basis o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is basis, that, therefore, so far as this duty demand is concerned, the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour, that the penalty under Rule 26 on Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, Ms. Sunita Agarwal and Shri Saurabh Agarwal, is not justified, that no inquiry has been made with Ms. Sunita Agarwal and Shri Saurabh Agarwal, that in any case, when the duty demand of Rs. 13,70,150/- is not sustainable, there is no question of penalty under Rule 26 and that in view of this, the amount already paid by the appellant may be considered is sufficient for hearing of their appeals and the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty, interest thereon and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeals and recovery thereof may be stayed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on shortage of 96.935 MT of MS Ingots and this amount has already been paid and is not even seriously contested. The other component of duty demand is Rs. 2,26,80,122/- which is based on the allegation that while the appellant under reported their production of MS Ingots as while as per the report of Dr. N.K. Nakra of IIT, Kanpur, for production of one MT of MS Ingots only 1046 units of electricity are required, the appellants average electricity consumption varies from 990 unit per MT during some period to 3779 units per MT. Though the show cause notice, mentions the recovery of loose slips from the residential premises of Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, showing purchase of 437.58 MT of scrap and also discusses the statement of Shri Anil Kuma....