2015 (2) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. ORDER Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Ms. Suchitra Sharma, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal, ld. C.A. for the respondent. 2. As per facts on record the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingot. They were using M.S. Scrap, Sponge Iron, et....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which he confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,27,944/- as also imposed penalty of identical amount. In addition seized final product was confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 5. On appeal against the above order Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/-. As regard the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... As such, he has held that there is no evidence to show that actual physically verification was undertaken. He set aside the charge of shortages and the consequent confirmation of demand. 7. Apart from the fact that its not possible to [weigh] such a huge quantum of scrap, for which the revenue has neither produced the inventories nor any other evidence on record, I also note that apart fr....