TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial),JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. B L Narsimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Yashpal Sharma, DR ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench): The facts leading to filing of these appeals are, in brief, as under: 1.1 The appellants M/s R M Brothers (P) Ltd. located at Jothwara, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as RMB), M/s Jagdamba Ispat (P) Ltd. having their factory at VKI area Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as JI) and M/s Amar Pratap Steels (P) Ltd. having their factory at Bagru, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as APSPL) are manufacturers of MS Ingots. On 10.09.2005, the premises of M/s Shri Sharma Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. located at Jothwara, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of RMB, JI and APSPL is on account of gross under reporting of the production of MS Ingots. In this regard it may also be mentioned that proceedings had been initiated against NIPL for recovery of duty from them on alleged unaccounted manufacture and clearance of MS Ingots and in this regard they had gone to the Settlement Commission and had settled their matter. 1.2 The Investigating officers by adopting the power consumption of 689 units per metric ton in case of NIPL estimated the production of MS Ingots in case of RMB, JI and APSPL on the basis of power consumption of these parties during the period from April 2002 to September 2006, December 2004 to September 2006 and April 2005 to September 2006 respectively, and accordingly, de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ules on Sh. Gurmukh Singh, Director of APSPL. 1.3 The above SCNs were adjudicated by three separate orders, each dated 30.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur by which the above mentioned duty demands were confirmed along with interest and penalty of equal amount were imposed under section 11AC on the appellant companies and beside this, penalty under Rule 26 of the following amount was imposed on the Directors of the appellant companies. (i) Sh. Ashish Jindal, Director of RMB Rs. 50 Lac, Sh. (ii) Bhanwar Lal Gupta, Director of JI Rs. 25 Lac and (iii) Sh. Gurmukh Singh, Director of APSPL Rs. 25 Lac. Against the above orders passed by the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed. The Miscellaneous ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to other induction furnace, as the power consumption ratio in an induction furnace unit would depend upon various factors like age of the machinery number of heats during each day, frequency of power break downs etc., that the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Pragati Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Kanpur reported in 2012 (286) ELT 253 (Tri.-Del), that the Tribunal in the case RA Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Meerut-I reported in 2009 (237) ELT 674 (Tri. Del), has held that without conducting any experiment regarding power consumption in respect of an induction furnace unit, an arbitrary norm of 1046 units of electricity for manufacture of one metric ton of steel ingots cannot be adopted, and that merely on the basis of power co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder and pleaded that the ratio of 689 units per MT has been adopted from M/s NIPL, that though M/s NIPL had shown a much higher power consumption ratio, subsequently on the basis of the evidence regarding unaccounted manufacture and clearance of MS Ingots which they themselves admitted before the Settlement Commission, their average power consumption was worked out to 689 units per metric ton, that in the case of RMB, JI and APSPL, the power consumption per metric ton of MS Ingots produced has been inflated on account of under reporting of the production of MS Ingots, that the fact of duty evasion by unaccounted manufacture of MS Ingots and clandestine removal is clear from the entries regarding receipt of MS Ingots on certain dates in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upp) Supreme Court 660. In this case, the cross examination of the concerned persons of SSSRM had not been allowed. In view of this, merely on the basis of the entries in the private ledger account maintained by SSSRM regarding supply of MS Ingots by the appellants to them the allegation of clandestine removal of MS Ingots against the Appellant against the appellants would not be sustainable more so, when other than the ledger entries of SSSRM there is no other evidence of clandestine removal of MS Ingots by the appellants to SSSRM. 7. As regards the allegation that the actual power consumption in respect of the appellants unit is 689 units per MT and their higher power consumption per MT is on account under reporting of the production b....