2015 (2) TMI 1211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Batra, AR, for the Appellant. Shri K.K. Anand and Ms. Priyanka Goyal, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The Revenue has filed these appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the charge of clandestine removal against the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of audit in the premises of M/s. Chopra Steel Strips and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the proceedings were initiated against the respondents. The respondent contested before the adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand of duty and interest and imposed penalty. Aggrieved with the said orders, the Revenue is before me. 3. Learned AR appeared on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondent has not shown that how their machines are claimed excess burning loss in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n this case, admittedly the show cause notice were issued to the respondents on the basis of audit conducted in the factory of third party and it was alleged that the respondent have cleared the goods without invoice clandestinely under the guise of burning loss. He also submits the certificate from National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology dated 1-9-2011 certifies that the small scale stee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation of claim of excess burning loss is alleged in the show cause notice without any tangible evidence why the burning loss is not more than 2%. But Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh himself observed in the circular dated 13-11-2011 that burning loss in respect of hot re-rolling mill may vary from 1-2% to 6-7%. If the said circular would have been appreciated by the adjudicating authority, the adjud....