TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in these appeals is whether the Principal Commissioner vide its impugned order dated 08.01.2018 is justified in confirming the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 10,68,667/- along with interest and penalty in respect of clandestine removal of 360.240 mt of M.S. Ingots recovered from the appellant M/s. Balaji Stuctural (India) Ltd., Raipur of which the appellant-Suresh Agarwal is Director. 3. I have Heard both the parties and perused the records. A show cause notice dated 06.08.2010 was issued to the appellant in appeal no. 50855/2018-Ex (SM) as to why:- (i) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 16,04,75,554/- (BED Rs. 15,63,58,411/- (+) Ed. Cess Rs. 31,27,168/- & SHE Cess Rs. 9,89,975/-) (as detailed above and in Annexure-A ) on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds recovered from the said Sh. S.K. Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel. At the time of adjudication before the ld. Principal Commissioner, Sh. S.K Pansari proprietor of Monu Steel did not appear for cross-examination despite various opportunities given and the same has recorded in the impugned order in paragraph 21.3 also. The show cause notice mentioned that "the appellant" with intent to evade payment of duty suppressed reproduction of M.S. Ingots so manufactured out of such sponge iron and clandestinely removal 58681 MTs (including the quantity of 360.240 mt of M.S Ingots manufactured and cleared clandestine by the appellant in 2006-07) without issue of invoices and without payment of duty as recorded in the dairies of M/s. Monu Stee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the department is justified in proceedings against the appellants in the present matter. 8. Since some of the manufactures i.e. M/s. Sh. Shyam Ingot and Casting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Nutan Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, whose names were also found in the dairy recovered from Sh. S.K. Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel, accepted their irregularities and admitted the duty liability therefore no corroboration was required in those cases. But in the present case the appellant did not admit the liability and submitted that the Revenue is not adduced any corroborative evidence to show the movement of the goods from the premises of the appellant to the premises of any buyers or the customers nor they brought on record any evidence as to whose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be made. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter of Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India; 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) and also this Tribunal in the cases of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Bs. CCE, Raipur, 2016-(335) ELT 297 (Tri.-Del.), CCE & ST Raipur Vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd.- 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE & ST, Ludhiana Vs. Anand Founders & Engineers- 2016 (331) ELT 340 (P&H), have categorically held that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. 11. In an identical matter this tribunal vide its order dated 04.04.2018 in Appeal No. E/50526-50527/2018 -SM titled as, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....340 (P&H). It stand held in all these judgments that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents, unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. In the absence of any corroborative evidence and in view of the law declared in the above decisions, I find no justifiable reasons to uphold the impugned orders. Accordingly, the same are set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants." Similarly this tribunal in the matter of Excise Appeal No. E/50874/2018-Ex [SM] M/s. Ashok Ispat Udyo Vs.Comm. of C.Ex., CGST, Raipur & Excise Appeal No. E/50812/2018-Ex [SM] M/s. Vijay Chand Bothra Vs. Comm. of C.Ex., CGST, Raipur, set....