2018 (7) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he facts of the case are that M/s Mahesh Ferrous Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots classifiable under chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 30.01.2010 officers from Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Rourkela Regional Unit and Jamshedpur Regional Unit visited the factory premises of the appellant and office-cum-residence of Sri. Madan Mohan Nayak, Managing Director of the appellant company. The officers conducted scrutiny of the records and verified documents for the period from 01.04.2007 to 30.04.2007. The DGCEI units found that the appellant company had clandestinely cleared goods in order to evade payment of duty and also found irregularities in the records bein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 (Tribunal), which had held that a demand could not sustain solely on the basis of a private diary without considering production capacity, purchase and utilisation of raw material, labour employed, etc. He also relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Patna v. Universal Polythelene Industries reported as 2001 (130) ELT 228 (Tri.-Kol). 5. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. On perusal of records, I find that the irregularity in maintaining record of stock has not been disputed by the appellant. The appellant had stated before the adjudicating authority that the alleged excess production of 827MT of MS Ingots was nothing but the accumulated production of preceding month....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent made by the learned counsel, Mr. Mayur Shroff. It is true that both paragraphs i.e. the conclusion drawn at paragraph 38.10.1 and paragraph 38.9 may appear to be at loggerheads. To my mind it is not so. Whenever there is a charge of clandestine removal, it is impossible for the department to prove beyond reasonable doubt and with mathematical precision. The perpetrator of the misdemeanour is the only person who knows the various sins of actions and commissions. It is not possible for the third person like the department to find out the various misdeeds of the manufacturer. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty on the basis of synchronisation of the private records with the statutory records. What more evidence is required! A....