2017 (3) TMI 916

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was aware with the clandestine removal of the company and was also the beneficiary, wherein a demand of Rs. 4,39,98,310/- was imposed vide the same common OIO. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that there is no finding of his involvement in any clandestine activity. He further relies on the finding in the Final Order No. A-388-95/03-NB-C dated 22.07.2003 wherein the matter of the main company Somani Iron & Steels Ltd. and others, this Tribunal have recorded following findings :- "4. On the basis of above mentioned shortage, it was alleged that during the period from Feb., 90 to 17.1.93, appellants suppressed the production of 62202 Mts of ingots and this quantity was cleared without payment of duty to their sister concerns. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants factory, were in the hands of Sh. Lalit Tewari. 6. The contention of the appellants is that the production for the period from 17/01/1993 to 18/01/1993 i.e. his ... were not recorded in their statutory records due to the visit of Excise Officers and this production was not taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority while calculating the excess quantity alleged to have been produced by the appellants during 01/01/1993 to 17/01/1993. 11. We find that the private records recovered from the appellants premises showing the date wise detail in respect of issue of raw-material for each heat, the number of heats during the period from 01/01/1993 to 17/01/1993 which shows excess production than the quantity shown in the statut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the alleged quantity of M.S. ingots cannot be produced. This evidence is not rebutted by the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority rejected the same on the basis of general presumption, which is not sustainable. 14. In respect of penalty imposed on sister concerns of appellant firm, there is no evidence on record to show that they were receiving ingots from the appellant firm on which no duty had been paid. The adjudicating authority held that when the goods were cleared without payment of duty, therefore, these will not be shown in respect of their sister concern. We find that this finding is also without any evidence. We find that in these circumstances, when there is no evidence to show that the sister concerns receive....