2018 (7) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt herein] on 7.7.2011. Thereafter on 5.5.2014 i.e. after a period of three long years, the department recorded the statements of Mr. Nitin Agrawal, Director of SSPL. After that a show cause notice dated 7.5.2014 was issued to the said SSPL, demanding central excise duty for clandestinely removing the MS Ingots for the period April, 2009 to July, 2011 without payment of duty. According to the department, the investigation revealed that SSPL cleared large quantities of MS Ingots to various parties without accounting for in their records and without payment of Central Excise duty and that the appellant herein was also one of such buyers of clandestine sale of MS Ingots. 3. On the basis of the investigation and the ledger account retrieved ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should not be charged and recovered from them, under Section 11AA {erstwhile Section 11AB} of the Central excise Act,. 1944. 4. The said demand was confirmed by both the Authorities below. 5. I have heard ld. Advocate for the Appellant and ld. AR for the department and perused the record of the case. The ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the show cause notice was issued on the basis of assumptions and presumptions which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that merely on the basis of some pen drive entry of 3rd party, that too without naming the Appellant, the department is not justified in proceeding against the Appellant without any corroborative evidence. H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to any buyers or the customers nor they brought on record any evidence as to who is buyers of 144.038 MT of MS Angles/ channels and 3.008 MT of Waste and Scrap (end cutting) allegedly sold by the Appellant. 7. In the impugned order nowhere it has been discussed as to how the demand to duty of Rs. 3,99,687/- is sustainable in the absence of any clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. The law as to whether the 3rd party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is well settled. Only on the basis of statement of third party no demand could be made. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter of C....