TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture of various hot rolled of iron and steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the officers on 21.9.2001 to conduct various checks and verifications. The stock of the inputs as also of the final products was undertaken and some shortages and excesses were found. In the present case, we are not concerned with the same. 3. Statement of various persons were also recorded during the course of search. 4. In addition, the dharm kanta located nearby the factory was also put to search and as per the weighment slips maintained the by the said dharm kanta, officers entertained a view that the appellant had been indulging in clandestine clearance of their final product. On the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val of 3,202,650 MT of finished goods without payment of duty during the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 through trucks no. MP24C1534 and MP24C0851 which belonged to the party no. 1. The party have stated that the said trucks were given to the driver on contract basis for which they received a payment of Rs. 13,000.00 to Rs. 20,000.00 per month. They have also contended that the weighment register of M/s. Rukhmani Dharam Kanta does not show the description of the goods and name of the persons who got the same weighed and claimed that the demand made in the show cause notice is not sustainable only on the basis of entries of truck nos. in the weighment register. They also contended that for manufacture and clearance of such a large quantity of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he party no. 1 that they had annual manufacturing capacity of 1,450 MTs of steel material. They have already recorded production of 1,948.389 MTs and 1,877.208 MTs of finished goods during 2000-2001 and 2001-2202. There is no evidence on record to show that the party had expanded their manufacturing capacity by 1600 MTs a year. The allegation of suppression of production is therefore not supported by the capacity of production of the party as well. In absence of any such corroborative evidence, entries of the trucks available in the weighment register of Rukhmani Dharam Kanta cannot be a conclusive evidence to establish suppression of production and clandestine removal of the excisable goods. The entries made in the weighment register may c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... back of funds, purchase of final products by parties alleging receipt and removal of goods etc. is necessary. CESTAT in the case of CCE vs. Supreme Fire Works factory [2004 (163) ELT 510 (Tri) dealt with the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal and observed that mere suspicion can not take place of proof. Proof and evidences of purchase of raw materials, sale of final goods clandestinely is necessary. The allegations are not sustainable in absence of evidences. CESTAT in case of CCE vs. Shree Narottam Udyog (P) Ltd. [2004 (158) ELT 40 (Tri)] has dealt with the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods and held that settled law is that the charge of clandestine removal being a serious charge required to be prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 58,14,587.00 is liable to be dropped for lack of evidences. 4.8 Recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,51,460.00 has been proposed on 294.233 MT of finished goods said to have been removed clandestinely by showing a lesser quantity in the invoice than the actual quantity of removal. The said allegation has been contested by the party on the grounds that many times, the buyers have been using the same truck for loading their goods from more than one factory, therefore, the weight of the goods mentioned in the weighment register against the same truck cannot be considered to have been removed from the factory premises of the party no. 1. I find that demand has been raised on the grounds that a single vehicle has been weighed mor....