2018 (1) TMI 1207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case are that the appellant herein, M/s Vikromatic Steels Pvt. Ltd., is engaged inter-alia, in the manufacture of M.S.Ingots, Bars, Flats etc., falling under Chapter Heading 72 & 73 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Acting on intelligence that the Appellant Company is engaged in the clandestine clearance of excisable finished goods without payment of Central Excise duty, the Officers of DGCEI, Regional Unit at Jamshedpur and Rourkela, visited the factory premises of the Appellant company on 23/24.12.2008. During the course of stock taking, the Department observed that the quantity of 344.270 MT of M.S.Bars/ TMT Bars and 23.140 MT of M.S.Flats were available in excess in the factory, as against the quantity show....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on estimation basis and thus, no reliance can be placed on the stock taking report to allege that there was excess stock of goods available in the factory of the Appellant Company. He further submitted that the statement dated 24.12.08 recorded from Shri Jai Prakash Chaudhary, was retracted on 26.12.2008 and thus, the said statement cannot be considered as evidence for initiation of proceedings against the appellant for confirmation of adjudged demand. It is his further submission that the stock taking was done first time after a period of more than 10 years and the percentage of excess goods found in the factory in comparison with the goods handled by the Appellant Company vis-a-via as recorded in the daily stock account, were only to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Final Order No.A-890-891/KOL/2012 dated 28.12.2012, passed by This Tribunal in the case of M/s K.K.Polycolor India Ltd. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. I find that the Department has not subsequently brought out any evidence regarding the method and mode adopted by it for physical stock taking of the subject goods available in the factory of the Appellant Company. Since the Department has solely relied upon the statement of Shri Jay Prakash Chaudhary, to arrive at the conclusion that there was excess availability of impugned goods in the factory, and such statement having been retracted by the said person, the averment made therein cannot be legally sustainable for initiation of proceedings against the appellant ....