2015 (7) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. For the Respondent : Shri R K Mishra, AR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty, interest and penalty against the appellant was confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant are manufacture of MS ingots. On 24.2.2010, the factory of appellant was visited and some shortage of inputs and finished goods were detected. On detect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e evidence of clandestine removal of goods. In these circumstances, duty, penalty are not payable by the appellants. In these circumstances, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside and to support this contention he relied on the decision of Hri Sidhdata Ispat Pvt. Ltd vide Final Order No. A/54836/14 SM(Br) dated 24.12.2014. He also relied on the decision of Minakshi Castings [2011(274)ELT 18....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contest the duty liability but contested only penalty till the level of Commissioner (Appeals). When learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that there is no tangible evidence of clandestine removal of goods, therefore appellant cannot be allowed to contest the duty liability taking support of Hri Sidhdata Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the case of hri Sidhdata Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (supra), i....