AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee-appellant, M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., Champa and has given option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs. The impugned order further imposes penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the other appellant. Shri N.K. Gupta, Vice President (M/s Prakash Industries Ltd.), Delhi. 2. Revenue (CCE, Raipur) has also filed cross appeal (No. 3704/2006) against the same impugned order in original No. 38/2006 dated 31.3.2006 passed by Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise, Raipur. 3. The appellant viz. M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. (Appeal No. 2287/2006) and Shri N.K. Gupta, Vice President (Appeal No. 2292/2006) have been represented by ld. Advocates, Shri K.K. Anand, Ms. Surbhi Sinha, Shri Rohit Chaudhary and Ms. Preeti Khiwani and Revenue has been represented by ld. DR, Shri R.K. Manjhi. (Appeal No. 2287/2006 (by M/s Prakash Industries): 4. The brief facts are that the appellant M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. (Appellant No.1) are engaged in manufacture of MS billets, Bloom, Ingots, Sponge Iron etc. falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff. They claim to sell their finished goods to various entities manufacturing rerolled products. Revenue received th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder ordering confiscation of related land, building, plant and machinery of the appellant assessee. 5. The Revenue's cross Appeal No. (E/3704/2006) against the same original order mainly prays that the demand of Rs. 9,94,65,997/- on account of clearance of 156 MTS of goods which is based on Bilty Nakal Registers along with the corresponding penalty be confirmed. Revenue in their cross appeal also prays that penalty be also imposed on Shri B.K. Gupta, Vice President of M/s PIL, Raipur. 6. On behalf of appellants, ld. Counsel at the strength of written submissions inter alia submits that:- (i) Duty is mainly based on oral statements which have been retracted. (ii) Commissioner dropped duty demand of Rs. 9,94,65,997/- and did not accept the veracity of various statements; the same principle would apply even in cases, where Commissioner confirmed the duty demand. (iii) Duty of Rs. 79,57,994/- relating to 262 parallel invoices provided by some source/informer cannot be relied on unless this source is revealed. These documents are in the form of photo copies and have no evidentiary value or of little evidentiary value. (iv) Commissioner confirme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oices are further supported by the evidence in the form of transport documents and weighment slips. These invoice evidences were provided by the concerned informer of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence who made the searches of the related premises of the appellants. The appellants challenge that photo copies cannot be made admissible so the evidence has no substance / force. But facts remains that there are other evidences on record to substantiate the charge of removal of the goods on the parallel 262 invoices, where the duty of Central Excise was not paid by the appellant assessee. The Commissioner in the impugned order has given the finding that there is no indication of any manipulation on 262 invoices; these are authentic documents (invoices). These 262 invoices have been found to be issued by the appellant - assessee and later on, they removed the same from regular record and did not discharge the duty of Central Excise on these invoices. The impugned order confirms that the AGM Shri S.N. Jha working with the assessee company identified the signatures of the persons who prepared invoices, in his statement. It has also been noted in impugned order that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... production report, whereas in the RG-I register production shown is 1963.95 and 955.55 MTs respectively only during the relevant period. The impugned order notes (in its para 5.5) that difference between the production as per production report and the daily stock (in RG-I record) is 66%, which is not attributable to rejection on account of quality tests especially when the production reports have no indication of any quality problem during the period. The assessee has also not produced any documentary evidence indicating rejection on account of quality. The assessee's contention that shortage is on account of quality test, therefore, is not acceptable and has been rightly rejected by the adjudicating authority. The above facts have also been admitted in the statement of Shri S.N. Jha, working with the appellant assessee as AGM. The statement of Shri S.N. Jha also makes a mention that the production in RG-1 register recorded was recorded less as per the directions of Shri Ashok Sharma, who has also been working with the assessee company in the capacity of AGM (Accounts). Revenue found that the quantity which was not entered in RG-I register though was found entered in production re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Consequently, the confirmation of this demand of duty of Rs. 6,45,427/- along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty on the assessee is hereby sustained. 10. Next grievance of the appellant is that by the impugned order duty demand of Rs. 4,95,738/- on account of shortage of 325.783 MT of MS Ingots and Blooms in the stock of the assessee appellant in comparison with the stock maintained in the daily stock account as on 30..4.2002 was confirmed. 10.1 The assessee appellant's argument is that the stock was ascertained on eye estimation basis and there was no actual weighment. From the record, it is evident that there has been physical accounting of the Blooms and Ingots with proper multiplication with the average weight of such Bloom and Ingots, which was recorded in the Panchnama dated 30.4.2002. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that this is the practice followed in the steel industry and was accepted by the assessee. The impugned order makes a mention of CESTAT decision in the case of CCE Vs. Nagpal Steels (P) Ltd. - 1995 (79) ELT 463 (T), where it was mentioned that such physical counting and ascertainment of the stock of MS Ingots and Blooms cannot be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y taking a lenient view, the redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed by the impugned order for redeeming the said items is reduced to Rs. 6.25 lakhs, which is 25% of the earlier redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs. Appeal No. E/2292/2006 (by Shri N.K. Gupta, Vice President); 13. In this appeal, Shri N.K. Gupta, Vice President has challenged the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on him. On his behalf, it was pleaded that he is a salary paid employee and does not have any independent existence of the assessee manufacturer and is not independently responsible for the conduct of assessee's business. But facts make clear that the appellant Shri N.K. Gupta has been involved on the marketing as well as issued necessary directions for dispatch of the goods (without payment of duty of Central Excise) to the AGM Shri Bhadoria in the capacity of Vice President, the position, he was holding in the assessee company. It has also been on record that Shri N.K. Gupta was concerned with the transportation, removal and selling of excisable goods, which were liable to confiscation as the same were cleared without payment of duty. The impugned order supports imposition of above penalty of Shri Gupta cit....