TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Excise duty. One of the products manufactured by the main appellant is Silico Manganese used in the metallurgical industry. Primary raw materials for the manufacture of the said product are Manganese Ore and Coal. After completing audit of the books of accounts maintained by the main appellant, the Revenue entertained a view that the appellants have short paid Central Excise duty by suppressing the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods during the period 2006-2007 to 2008-2009. A show cause notice was issued on 18/11/2011 demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,55,69,508/- and Rs. 71,60,235/- alongwith proposals to impose penalties. The first amount is on account of clearance of Manganese Ore Fines/Waste which in fact was alle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial amount of Rs. 3.43 crores have been shown as income from "other sources" which corroborates the case of improper removal of excisable goods as the appellants failed to establish the source of such income ; (d) regarding the penalty on appellant No. 2 it was held that he facilitated, aided, abetted the main appellant in all these activities resulting in evasion of duty. All the documents were either issued under the guidance of appellant No. 2 or under his signature as Director of appellant No. 1. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for both the appellants submitted that the impugned order is factually and legally not sustainable. 4. He submitted mainly on the following lines :- (a) there is no evidence to substantiate any unaccou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccounts for about 1.5% which is much below the generally accepted loss percentage in the industry ; and (g) the appellant regularly filed ER-5 and ER-6 returns. The shortages were duly declared in the balance sheet and the ITRs. All accounts are duly maintained and accordingly, there could be no case for invoking extended period of limitation and for imposition of penalty in this case. 5. The learned AR supported the findings of the lower authority. He submitted that impugned order has examined the defence submissions of the appellant in all aspects before arriving at the conclusion. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. The duty demand against the appellant was primarily on two issues. The first one is with r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as not found in the records of the RTO were satisfactorily explained later. The error was attributed to the mistake while noting down the vehicle numbers shown in the challans. We note that heavy reliance has been placed by the Revenue on the discrepancies in the vehicle details and nonavailability of buyers details with reference to accounted clearance of Manganese ore fines/waste. While a prima facie case can be initiated on such premise we note that duty demand on the final product requires corroborative evidence and analysis of all available evidences which should cumulatively lead to a conclusion that the goods have been manufactured and cleared clandestinely. We find such analysis is lacking in the impugned order. 8. Regarding un....