2018 (4) TMI 949

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for respondent The facts of the case are that appellant are engaged in manufacture of Aluminium profiles out of Aluminium scrap. The case of the department is that imported Aluminium scrap shown to have been sold to M/S. Vignesh Alloys Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore, M/S. Sri Venkateshwara Non-Ferrous Foundry, Hyderabad and M/S. J.R. Duralumin Alloys, Bangalore, who are the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tinely e Accordingly, demand of excise duty of such alleged clandestine removal amounting to Rs. 10,03,989/- and equal amount of penalties were confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 1 lac was imposed on Shri. Ravindra J Chheda, Director of the appellant company under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e removal would not sustain. He further submits that there is no evidence regarding the clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods, therefore merely on allegation of receipt of the Aluminium scrap, it cannot be concluded that appellant have manufactured and cleared the goods clandestinely. He submits that in the identical set of cases, one case was made out against Rajdhani Refinery Pvt. L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ain statements of third party i.e. Transporter and CHA. The director of appellant company has categorically denied the receipt of unaccounted imported scrap. In this circumstances the adjudicating authority should have considered the submissions made by the appellant when the Director of the appellant company has denied and given contrary statements to statements given by the transporter and CHA i....