2017 (3) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 09/04/2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur. The above stated three appeals are arising out of same the Order-in-Original. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s Premier Ispat Ltd., were engaged in the manufacture M.S. Bars falling under Chapter sub-heading 721390 of schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 15/07/2002, officers of DGOEI visited the manufacture unit of appellant and searched the premises and drawn a Panchnama dated 15/07/2002 wherein they have recorded that there was some shortage of the finished goods in the factory as compared to the production recorded in the RG-1 Register & 11 loose slips were retrieved by them. Subsequent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of 6 mm and contended that they never manufacture V.S. Bar of 6 mm and stated that said 11 loose slips, stated to have been recovered, actually were not recovered from their record. They, further, contended that the sale of the finished goods by them was always ex-factory and there was no question of engaging any vehicles by the appellants for transportation of finished product. They also requested that the records procured from the possession of such transporters may be made available to them by the Department. They, further, contended that they did not have installed capacity of production of such huge quantity of finished goods stated to have been clandestinely cleared by them and that the Show Cause Notice did not indicate any evidenc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore, penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, is without authority of law. 4. Heard the Id. Counsel, Shri Bipin Garg, for the appellants. He has contended that the statement of Shri Amit Jain on 13/11/2002 has clearly established that 11 loose slips were not recovered from the manufacturing factory of the appellant. Further, on the basis of the said 11 loose slips in para 6.06 the Show Cause Notice, it is stated that the information of various numbers written on these slips relates to serial number of the truck, quantity of different thickness of M.S. Bars etc. whereas there was no statement on record on the basis of which such inference could be drawn by Revenue. He has contended that the entire inference drawn by R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant as it was on the record that as per the statement dated 13/11/2002 of Shri Amit Kumar Jain, it was very clearly stated by him that the said 11 loose slips did not belong to them and were placed by Officers in the record. Though, subsequently a statement were recorded by Revenue of Shri Amit Kumar Jain on 27/01/2004 wherein contradictory was stated by him but because of the presence of contradictory statements on record it was not proved beyond doubt that the said 11 loose slips were recovered from the record maintained by the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice on the basis of the said 11 loose slips. We, further, find that the allegations of evasion of Rs. 26,49,514/-....