2018 (3) TMI 760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsumed more electricity power as compared to the power required for manufacture of finished goods. The difference of power presumed to have used for manufacture of finished goods and the said finished goods have been cleared without payment of duty. The entire case was based on the statement of employees/directors. Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings of the show-cause notice on the ground that merely on the statements of partners/directors regarding average consumption of electrical power per MT of finished goods is not dependable evidence which will adequately prove the charges of clandestine production and removal. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, Revenue filed the present appeal. 3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, learned Author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....., v. CCE - 2009 (246) ELT 332 (Tri.) as approved by the Hon'ble High Court as reported in 2012 (275) ELT A57 (P & H) (f) Shivam Steel Corporation v. CCE - 2016 (339) ELT 310 (Tri.). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. We find that the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings of show-cause notices. The finding in one of the impugned order relating to the present cases is reproduced below:-  "This order is issued in pursuance of order File No. IV/16-4-CCO/ AE/PZZ/08 dated 14th July2008 issued by the Chief Commissioner, Gentra1 Excise, Pune, wherein the undersigned has been designated as the common adjudicating authority, in respect of 9 show cause notices whose details are given as Annexure 1 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved at and the actual production shown by the unit as per their record has been alleged as clandestine clearance and duty demanded there on.  The noticees have vehemently argued that the show-cause notice is based on only assumptions and presumptions and no evidence has been provided to reach the conclusion of clandestine removal. It settled law that the charge of clandestine removal has to be proved to the hilt by the department with sufficient and specific evidence. I agree with the submission of the noticees. The mere statement of the partner/directors purportedly indicating the average consumption of electrical power per metric tone of finished product is not dependable evidence which will adequately prove the charge of clandes....