2018 (4) TMI 1231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....only relief that the Cenvat credit on duty paid inputs was allowed. 2. That on 27/12/2011, the factory premises of the appellant and its Director's residential premises was searched by the Departmental Officers. As a result of search and the statements recorded, the following facts came to be known to the Department: - (a) There was a total receipt of 97.650 MT of Billets (raw material/inputs) whereas the quantity issued for production was nil, till the date and time of visit of the Officers. However, on physical verification of stock of Billets the same was found as 20.212 MT. Thus, there was a shortage of about 77.438 MT against the invoice dated 19/12/2011, being Invoice No. 971 to 975, the appellant had taken Cenvat credit of duty pai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otal 19 invoices were recovered containing its own details. 17 invoices were found to have been issued by the appellant for clearances of MS Angles, Channels & Bars. 1 (One) invoice was found to have been issued by appellant - Trading Division in favour of M/s Agwan Rolling Mills for 9.525 MT of MS Rolling. One delivery Challan No. 510/11-12 dated 19/12/2011 issued by M/s Satya Mitra Sales & Trading Co. was also found showing sale of 15.120 MT of old and used plates. On further scrutiny of the records, seized from the factory premises, some transactions relating to sale and purchase of goods for the period from 18/12/2011 to 26/12/2011 were found. On calculation, it was observed that 279.940 MT of finished goods appeared to have been cleare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntested the Show Cause Notice by filing reply dated 12/07/2012. It is contended that the Show Cause Notice is based on assumptions and presumptions and there was no case of clandestine removal of goods as alleged. Further, admittedly the amounts in dispute had been paid prior to the issue of Show Cause Notice along with penalty and as such the Show Cause Notice was uncalled for. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant states that the learned Commissioner have confirmed the demand and penalty ignoring the fact that part of demand is related to clearances made under cover of invoices, which cannot be termed as clandestine removal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in mis-interpreting the law and further the impugned order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant is that they had not cancelled such invoices. Further, there was no corroborative evidence of production and removal of goods correlating with the so-called parallel invoices. Thus, in absence of any corroborative evidence the allegation of clandestine removal is not sustainable. 5. That the demand of Rs. 7,14,564/- on the basis of loose papers is also not fit to be sustained as there was no removal of any goods clandestinely. That such loose papers was nothing else than 'production planning and dispatch planning', and in fact such dispatches took place later on. That there is no finding that the quantity mentioned in such loose slips were actually manufactured and sold. Hence, in absence of corroborative evidence or affirmative ....