AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two parties viz., SVA Steel Re-rolling Mills Limited (SVA) and Srinivasa Steel Rolling Mills (SSRM). We find that the statement of facts does not convey a cogent account of the impugned transactions and the adjudication. In the appeal memorandum the history of the case is not stated in the minimum detail to enable us to comprehend the facts of the case. It appears that the allegations were that the respondents had received steel ingots from associate firms in excess of that shown on the 57F challans and they had manufactured and cleared CTD bars and rods clandestinely under the cover of invoices of fictitious trading firms. It does not explain how exactly the department had proposed to establish the case in the Show Cause Notice. 2. A lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how these figures are obtained. However, the source or bases of these figures are not furnished. The appellant speaks of Rs. 24,31,47,423/- as the amount deposited in the bank accounts of the trading firms (listed in the appeal) as observed from the bank records. In the next sentence value of CTD bars/rods manufactured and cleared without payment of duty worked out was shown as under:- M/s. SVA M/s. SSRM TOTAL Rs.22,56,68,325/- Rs.262,64,88,747/- 4,12,20,422/- The next sentence states that the duty alleged to have been evaded was Rs. 3,37,90,249/- by SVA and Rs. 61,83,063/- by SSRM. The appellant speaks of two Show Cause Notices issued and mentions that replies were furnished by the noticees. There is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and assumptions and since the SCN itself was full of contradictions, further proceedings in the case be dropped. 5. The rest of the statement of facts in para 11 explained how the Commissioner had dropped proposals made in the Show Cause Notices. The same is reproduced below:- 11. After going through the facts of the case, the Commissioner found that the quantification of demand in the show cause notice was neither based on the final product that could be manufactured out of unaccounted raw materials (said to have been received from BAS/SAPL) or based on alleged cash receipts through the cheques of the Bill Traders. He further concluded that when no enquiry had been made with the supplier of ingot, no notice had been i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of SVA/SSRM. Such proposition was not agreeable. 11.2 With regard to the reason there was no response from the Bill Traders to the summons or to the newspaper advertisement did not infer that the bill traders never existed but were not available for enquiry. He further observed that the investigating officers ought to have verified the bona fides from Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) regarding the transactions and whether these Bill Traders filed returns and whether they had shown disposals for Form XX collected by them. There was no attempt in the SCN to determine quantity of unaccounted CTD bars manufactured through excess electricity consumption. The SCN stated at one side that Sri Jithu and Sri Sharma were planted names ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Commissioner which the appellant probably disputes. However, the facts remain unclear to even a reader committed to make sense out of the narration. In four and half pages of the grounds of appeal much space is consumed in explaining how preponderance of probability is cardinal and adequate in establishing charges in quasi judicial proceedings before the departmental officers. The grounds of appeal reproduce an allegation from the show cause notice about unexplained consumption of power and suggests that the Chartered Engineer s Certificate of consumption of power (apparently accepted by the Commissioner) was inadequate explanation as it had not furnished the item-wise particulars of consumption. Apart from this, the only grounds bas....