2015 (7) TMI 1098

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceipts of M.S. Ingots from some suppliers in the factory, including ten consignments of the present appellant. The DGCEI officials recorded the statement of Shri Farash Bahadur and also Shri Surendra Pandey, authorised signatory of M/s. Ranbir Steel Industries. Thereafter, on 19.01.2007, the said officials visited the factory premises of the appellant and found some non-duty paid inputs. They have recorded the statement of Shri Kanwal Kumar Chopra, Manager of the appellant, who stated that the appellants were the lessee of the factory with effect from 01.01.2007 which was earlier leased to M/s. BT Alloys Ltd till 21.12.2006. He confirmed that the appellant had used trucks No.PCS 9916 and PB 10B 6577 for clearance of their goods. The officer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned order dated 12.03.2014 in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on merits. Hence the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Heard ld. counsels for both the sides and perused the records. 3. I find from the available records that on the basis of search conducted by the Central Excise officers, two separate cases were made out, one against the present appellant and the second against M/s. BT Alloys Ltd. with the same allegations. With regard to the appeal filed by Revenue in the case of BT Alloys Ltd. [ reported in 2013 (297) ELT 387 (Tri.-Del)], the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal holding inter alia that the Department has not brought any tangible evidence to hold that the goods have been clandestinely removed. 4. I also fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firm on 18.01.07. Answer: There were no person in the name of Farash Bahadur ever employed in the firm." In view of the result of cross-examination, it is evidently clear that the appellant had not removed any goods clandestinely without payment of duty and that M/s. Ranbir Steel Industries had not received any goods without payment of duty as alleged by the authorities below. 5. I also find that no statement of transporter has been recorded by Revenue to prove that the goods were clandestinely transported to the factory of the appellant. Further, the Department has not produced other evidences such as receipt of payment of clandestinely removed goods, excess consumption of raw-material electricity, etc. to arrive at the conclusion that ....