TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the case are as under : 2.2 The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LABSA (Acid Slurry) classifiable under Chapter 34 to the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 through its factory situated at Sarsuna and Jugberia registered with the Central Excise Department separately. A bye product namely Spent Sulphuric Acid classifiable under Chapter 28 of CETA was emerged in continuous operation system and cleared on payment of duty. On 23.08.2007, the Officer of DGCEI visited the appellant s both the factories premises and office Premises and seized various records and documents. 2.3 Show Cause Notices dated 30.11.2010 were issued to M/s. Sai Sulphonate Private Limited (Appellant No. 1) for both Jugberia Unit and Sarsuna Unit and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise duty of Rs. 25,74,565/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of equal amount of duty on the Appellant Company and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on Shri Samarjit Kr.Pal, Director of the Appellant Company. Hence, the Appellant Company and its Director filed these appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. With regard to the Appeal of Jugberia Unit, I find that on 23.08.2007 the Central Excise Officers visited the appellant s factory and office and seized several records and also recorded the statement of Shri Tapas Kumar Acharya, Commercial Executive of the appellant company. There is a demand of duty of Rs. 3,73,503.00 on 41.4 M.T.s of Acid Slurry alleged to have been cleared clandestinely during the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asmuch as such lorries were shown to have been loaded and the goods were sent to Sumerpur, U.P. and it was shown that the said lorries were again loaded within 2-3 days, which is absurd and impossible. It is not possible for a tanker lorry to carry the goods to Sumerpur in U.P. and to return and again to place for loading within 2/3 days. Insome cases, it was also shown that receipt of LAB had been wrongly shown that Acid Slurry in the rough weighment. Hence, it was submitted by the appellant that the entries in the rough weighment exercise books, were not reliable for the purpose of raising the demand. 7. The appellant in their submission dated 31.08.2016 before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) further stated that in respect of 9 (nine) cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lorry was actually sent to the destination. Hence, the demand of duty on the basis of such documents cannot be sustained. 10. I find that the employee of the appellant company had not mentioned the name of the consignee in respect of the clearance on the basis of loose slips. I also find that the loose slips do not mention the description of the goods. Thus, there is force in the argument of the Learned Counsel as to whether the loose slips were used for the clearance of the Acid Slurry or Spent Sulphuric Acid. Apparently, the Investigating Officer had made out the case of such clandestine removal on the basis of the loose slips without basis of any enquiry to the extent of clearance of the goods, buyer name through investigation. Hence, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tock Taking for the measurement of the dips of the material in the storage tank. The main contention of the Learned Counsel of the appellant is as under "In the present case, it is mentioned in the reply to the show-cause notice that there were 12 storage tanks in their factory for storing of raw materials as well as finished goods. Shri Tapas Acharya specifically mentioned in his statement submitted before the Central Excise Officers that they have 12 storage tanks of which 2 tanks were used for storing LAB as input and 2 tanks were used for storing Sulphuric Acid as input, 1 tank was used for storing Spent Sulphuric Acid as finished by-product. , 4 tanks were used for Acid Slurury as finished products, 3 tanks were used for storing inte....