TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f central excise duty by one M/s Shivam Smelters Pvt Ltd., who is a manufacturer of MS ingots, the Authorities searched and unearthed documents from the said Shivam Smelters Pvt Ltd., which revealed clandestine procurement of raw material, clandestine manufacture of MS Ingots and clandestine clearance to other manufacturing units and one of that being the appellant herein. After detailed investigation show-cause notices were issued to Shivam Smelters Pvt Ltd and also to the current respondent for demand of duty on the finished goods that could have been manufactured by the respondent by consuming clandestinely procured raw material from M/s Shivam Smelters Pvt Ltd. The Respondent contested the show-cause notice on merits. Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Director of the Respondent to submit that he has admitted that there was receipt of about 55 MTs of MS Ingots which were not accounted in their records. 4. Learned counsel would read me the findings recorded by the lower authorities and also that the Director Shri A.K. Agarwal has not committed in the statement that he was receiving goods without payment of duty from M/s Shivam Smelters Pvt Ltd. As regards the confession given of 55 MTs of ingots received without duty paying documents, it is his submission that they have already refunded the amount by paying the same in TR-6 challans. Hence there is no question of any further clandestine receipt of the goods. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and peru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above quantities were worked from the private records maintained by SSPL and also confirmed in the statement dated 04.03.2011 given by Shri. Govind Kumar Agarwal. I further find that with respect quantity of 57.120 MTs of MS Ingots, Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal, Director of the appellant has confirmed the receipt of above without payment of duty in their factory. 11. The adjudicating authority has discussed the evidences pertaining to the case in detail in the impugned order and held that no documentary evidence has been unearthed from the factory/business of the appellant, to establish it as a case of clandestine removal of finished products by the appellant. In the entire case, I find that the stress is on private records of SSPL and remo....