TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of MS ingots. Penalty has also been imposed upon Shri Mahesh Agarwal in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submit that the entire case of the department is based upon the entries in the diary recovered from one Mr. S.K. Pansari (proprietor of M/s Monu Steels) and also on the statement of the said Mr. S.K. Pansari, without their being any corroborative evidence. The Ld. AR appearing for the Department reiterated the findings in the impugned order. ` He also submitted that the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has specifically recorded that Shri Mahesh Agarwal, director of M/s Suryodya had acknowledged the clearance of 196.570 MTs of MS ingots in their depositions made in Section 14 of Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the entries recorded in the dairy of third party i.e. one Sh. S.K. Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel. The entire case of the Revenue is based upon the records recovered from the said Sh. S.K. Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel. 7. The ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that merely on the basis of diary entry of third party without any corroborative evidence, the department is not justified in proceeding against the Appellant. The ld. AR submitted that on the basis of dairy entries of Sh. S.K. Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel the department had initiated proceedings against some other manufacturer also i.e. M/s. Sh. Shyam Ingot and Casting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Nutan Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raipur and that they accepted thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased upon the records recovered from Sh. S.K. Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel. There is no evidence expect the said statement and private dairy entry of 3rd party i.e. of Sh. S.K. Pansari which contains the name of the appellant. 10. The law as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence on 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 Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India; 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) and also this Tribunal in the cases of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur, 2016-(335) ELT 297 (Tri.-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is well established. Reference can be made to Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India - 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) as also Tribunal's decision in the case of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-I - 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). 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 ....