TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant, M/s PDIPL. The revenue has also filed appeal (No. 3150 of 2010/EX) against the same order dated 26.03.2010 of the Commissioner inter alia stating that adjudicating authority erroneously did not confirm the duty in case of 1540.709 MT of sponge iron, production of which was suppressed and removed clandestinely by M/s P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd.. 2. The appellant has been represented by the ld. Advocate, Sh. M.P. Singh and the revenue has been represented by the ld. AR, Sh. R.K. Majhi. Appeal No. E/1944/2010 EX (DB): 3. This appeal is filed by M/s P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. The appellant (PDIPL) based on appeal memorandum interalia submits that: i. The sole evidence to confirm the demand is the admission in the Panchnama and state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing physical verification. The impugned order in para 10.2 gives the findings in this regard. There is no evidence produced by M/s PDIPL, the appellant, to counter the same. Therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order in this regard. 4.2 In case of other part of the demand, which is of Rs. 18,39,809 against the suppressed production and clandestine removal of 549.660 MT of sponge iron, there are sufficient evidences available in the form of loose papers, log sheets, outgoing and incoming goods details and statement of GM (Commercial), Sh. A.N.Rao. M/s PDIPL also deposited the major part of this demand which was appropriated by the impugned order. The impugned order on this part of demand inter alia observes as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove statement of Sh. A.N. Rao, GM (Commercial) of the Noticee has got evidential value. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of K.P. Basheer Vs Collector reported I 1999 (109) ELT 247 (Tri) has held that admitted facts need not be proved/ established by the department. Further in the case of Commissioner Vs Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd reported in 1999 (112) ELT 1058 (Tri) the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that what is established does not have to be proved. In this regard I find that in the case of CCE, Surat-I Vs Umiya Chem Industries [2005 (185) ELT 410 (Tri. Mum)] the Hon'ble Tribunal held in para 13 that in a case of clandestine removal, it is not recorded and other evidence of shortage of raw materials....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e removal of total 1540.709 MT of sponge iron involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 52,13,280. 6.1 The subject demand of Rs. 52,31,280 arising on account of alleged suppressed production and clandestine removal of Rs. 1540.709 MT of sponge iron is inter alia discussed in the impugned order in its paras 10.3, 10.3.1 and 10.3.2. The impugned order in para 10.3.1 observes as under: "10.3.1. In this context, I find that these loose papers, undisputedly, have been recovered from the Noticee's factory under panchnama dated 25.08.2008 in presence of two independent Panchas and Sh. A.N. Rao, GM (Commercial) and the Authorized Signatory of the Noticee; that Sh. A.N. Rao, in his statement has stated that the records withdrawn under the said panchna....