2016 (4) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....S. Ingot. That Mill Scale Scrap originated during job work has been claimed to be from 4.01 to 10.01% during the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 which should have been normally in the range of 1 to 3 % as held by the Adjudicating authority. That appellate authority below has not countered the findings given by the Adjudicating authority. That Mill Scale Scrap burning loss of 10% is not justifiable as Respondent herein itself has claimed a loss of Mill Scale Scrap / Burning loss of 4.01% in the later years by modification of their re-heating furnace. That Revenues case is squarely covered by the Apex Courts judgment in the case of CC Madras & others Vs. D. Bhoormul [1983 (13) ELT 1546 (S.C.) in as much as department is not required to prove its ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tings Limited Vs. CCE) (iii) 2006 (204) ELT 87 (T)(Ram Steel Rollings Vs. CCE) (iv) 2004 (170) ELT 451 (T)(Western Metal Caps Vs. CCE) (v) 1995 (80) ELT 708 (T)(CCE Vs. Multiwyn Ind Corpn.) (vi) 2015 (322) ELT 723 (T)(CCE & ST Vs. Om Steel Rolling Mills) (vii) 2015 (317) ELT 268 (T)(Taloja Forging Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE) (viii) 2015 (316) ELT 175 (T) (CCE Vs. Shyam Udyog Ltd.) 3.1 It is also the case of the Respondent that extended period can not be made applicable. That the case law of CCE Vs. D. Bhoormul (Supra), relied upon by the Revenue, is not applicable on facts & law because in that case department had discharged initial onus of clandestine activity. That in the present case demand is purely on an assumption that Mill Scrap ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hority in Paras- 5 & 6 of the OIA dt 12/4/2013. In the absence of any such evidence contrary to the claim of the appellant Mill Scale Scrap generated during job work can not be held as an evidence of clandestine manufacture & clearance of M.S. Bars. The same can also not be considered as sufficient evidence to demand differential duty from the Respondent. 4.1 Above view taken also gets fortified by the case law of this bench in the case of CCE Calcutta-II Vs. Murttiwyn Industrial corp. [1995 (80) ELT 708 (Tribunal)]. In the case while rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue, following observations were made by this bench in Para-9:- "9. The appeal does not succeed, however, on the other grounds. The Assistant Collector has observed in ....