AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f M/S NIBI Steel Ltd., despite notice. 4. Heard the learned DR and perused the records. 5. The issue that falls for consideration in the appeal of M/S. NIBI Steel Ltd. is whether the First Appellate Authority was correct in confirming the demands raised by the show cause notice along with interest and consequent penalties or otherwise; in the appeal filed by revenue whether the First Appellate Authority was correct in dropping the demands raised by the Lower Authority or otherwise. 6. Learned Departmental Representative brings to my notice the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority while dropping the demands. It is his submission that the First Appellate Authority has erred in doing so, when there are statements of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....planation to offer for the excess goods found as also shortage of the goods. The challenge put up by the said M/S. NIBI Steel Ltd., in the grounds of appeals is not controverting the detailed reasoning recorded by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order at Paragraphs No. 8,9,10 and 11. In view of this I find that the appeal filed by the M/S. NIBI Steel Ltd. is devoid of merits and needs to the rejected. 9. As regards the appeals filed by the revenue, the First Appellate Authority has recorded detailed reasoning for setting aside the demands and as also penalties on the individual, after considering the evidence on records. The said findings are recorded at Paragraph No. 12,13 and 15 which are reproduced:- "Para 12-Du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is seen that none of these has been done. Thus to arrive at a conclusion of clandestine removal, merely on the basis of insufficient details of weighment made of goods in the truck to others. This is evident from the fact that even during April and May 2001, the truck was weighed at the same weighbridge. Thus it cannot be ruled out even during the months June 2001 to November 2001, weighments made at weigh bridge were of goods belonging to somebody as even then the truck had been given on hire. Thus, for providing clandestine removal, even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, affirmative and cogent evidence has to be adduced- Tribunal decisions in Emmtex Synthetics Vs CCE [2003(151)ELT 170 (Tri)], Esvee polymers(supra) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "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 more than once on the weigh bridge. In this context, I have examined the contentions of the party that some times as per recquirement of the customers, different description of the goods are loaded in a single truck from different factories and accordingly, the weighment of the vehicle is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hicle owner/drivers, receipt of excess raw material and manufacture therefrom, labour charges, payments for these etc. Thus without any corroboration and without any investigation to collect the needed evidence for the degree of proof on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, the liability cannot be pinned on the appellants. Therefore, this demand of Rs. 3,96,857/- is set aside. Para 15- It is also seen that penalties of Rs. 5,00,000/- each are imposed on Shri Vijay Bahadur Yadav and Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav. The lower authority has in the adjudication order not brought facts which would indicate individual role of these persons for imposing separate penalties on these two appellants. These two appellants have acted as Directo....