2017 (3) TMI 997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and of Rs. 100,70,546/- alongwith interest was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed against M/s Shree Sita Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. (appellant No.1), who is engaged in manufacture of Sponge Iron and M.S.Ingots. Besides, penalties were also imposed on Shri. Iqbal Razzak Hingora, Director (appellant No. 2) and Shri Sukumar Ghosh General Manager of the appellant company (appellant No. 3) under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, all the three appellants have preferred appeals before this Tribunal. 2. The reason for confirmation of demand is that during visit to the Appellant Unit, the officers recorded statement of Labour contractor, Shri Nasiruddin Sheikh who stated that during the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submitted to the adjudicating authority has denied his statement recorded by the Department. He submits that no demand can be made on the basis of statement of contractor and relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of Rinkoo Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2007 (212) E.L.T. 529 (Tri. - Mumbai). He submits that to substantiate duty demand on this count, reliance has been placed on single page of daily Dispatch sheet, which came for weighment of 9.110 MT of Lumps from Shivalay Ispat as per the statement of Shri Sukumar Ghosh, General Manager and nothing contrary was found. That as regards demand of Rs. 1,41,076/- on 57.032 MT of M.S. Ingots, he submits that it is not necessary that as soon as production is made, the same are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the buyer of such shortage goods. He relies upon the following judgment to show that only shortages cannot be a ground to demand duty in absence of any evidence of clandestine removal : (i) CCE, Kanpur Vs Minakshi Castings 2011 (274) E.L.T. 180 (All.) (ii) CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Nexo Products (India) 2015 (325) E.L.T. 106 (P & H) (iii) CC EX. & S.T., Ludhiana Vs. Anand Foun. & Eng. 2016 (331) E.L.T. 340 (P & H) (iv) Comm. Vs. Vikram Cement (P) Ltd. Ltd. 2014 (303) E.L.T. A82 (All.) upholding judgment of Tribunal in case of Vikram Cement (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur 2012 (286) E.L.T. 615 (Tri. - Del.) (v) National Eng. Ind. LTD. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2015 (330) E.L.T. 681 (Tri. - Del.) 5. He further su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abour contractor was denied and thus his affidavit was filed before the adjudicating authority negates its contents. We find that only on the basis of contractors statement and especially in case, when even his own record is not produced, the demand cannot be sustained. In this context, this Tribunal in case of Rinkoo Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra) has held that the chits recovered from residence of folding contractor stating processed MMF in absence of any indication therein as how clearances were made cannot be basis to allege clandestine removal. Similarly, in case of demand of Rs. 1,41,476/- based upon alleged production slip, we find that except allegation that on said date no production was found entered, no other evi....