TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s own account or as a job-worker of the Group Companies, i.e. (i) Gupta Cables Pvt. Ltd. (GCPL), (ii) Tirupati Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (TCPL), (iii) Bharat Electrical & Accessories Pvt. Ltd. (BEAPL) and Hitech Powercon Pvt. Ltd. (Hi-tech). The Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No.CCE/BBSR I/04/2006 dt.28.07.2006 issued on 16.08.2006 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 69,47,128/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 35,00,000/- on Shri Vineet Mohan Gupta, Director of M/s Kunj Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Being aggrieved with the said Order, the appellants have filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. 3.1 The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that on the basis of intelligence report that Gupta Cables Pvt. Ltd. (GCPL) was engaged in availing irregular modvat credit in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. Search by DGCEI was conducted in all the Group Companies including the Appellant Company on 25.09.2003. Several records/documents were seized and the below mentioned table shows the documents, of which,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterials on the date of search. It is his submission that they are disputing any of the said 52 entries of removals shown in seized record No.07/FAC/KUNJ/03 totalling 493.404 MT of aluminium/alloy wire rods. It is his submission that the seized records were not properly examined and the job works done for three concerns in question were held to be manufacture and removal of excisable goods. 3.2 The ld.Counsel submitted that allegation of clandestine removal cannot be unilaterally based on a set of registers containing entries of 'Out Going' materials only, without any corroboration whatsoever. He also argued that though in the course of search, the DGCEI Officials had seized the registers/records of inward receipt of inputs, they did not rely upon those and returned those to the appellant. Therefore, in the course of cross examination of the DGCEI Officials during personal hearing of the case on 31.12.2005, the Appellant produced the following seized records/documents, evidencing inward receipt of inputs, got those identified by the seizing Officials and the Ld. Commissioner, having appreciated the relevance and evidentiary value thereof, admitted those on records in the course of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....+c)] 5.936 MT (2.6%- Loss) d Difference [a-(b+c)] 27.572 MT (1.90%- Loss) TOTAL a Total input (own purchase+ job work) 1690.184 MT b Total removal as per statutory records 1640.261 MT c Scrap/in-process stock 16.415 MT Difference [a-(b+c)] 33.508 MT (2%) On the basis of the aforesaid reconciliation statement, it is submitted that they did not purchase any Aluminium Ingot on its own account during the period April 2003 to July 2003. The appellant submitted that all the Wire Rods alleged to have been removed by the Appellant clandestinely, were manufactured out of Aluminium Ingots received by it from principal manufacturer for conversion on job work basis under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1996 and therefore those are not liable to Central Excise Duty in the hands of the Appellant. The appellant pointed out that its total procurement of Aluminium Ingots (both on its own account as well as from principal manufacturer for job work) reconciled with the total removals made by it, as recorded in the documents relied upon in the SCN. 3.5 The ld.Advocate further contended that there is nothing on record that the appellant had purchased raw materials. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discrepancy whatsoever was found in the Appellant's group companies, namely Bharat Electrical & Accessories Pvt. Ltd. (BEAPL) and Hi-Tech Powercon (P) Ltd. (Hi-tech) and therefore no Show Cause Notices were issued to them, separate Show Cause Notices were issued to Gupta cables Pvt. Ltd. (GCPL) & Tirupati Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (TCPL). 8. Show Cause Notice dated 25.01.2005 issued to GCPL proposed recovery of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 7,66,116/- on the allegation that the 60.5 MT of Conductors physically found short was allegedly removed without payment of duty. The SCN was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. JC/HDQR/BBSRI/ CE/14/2006 dated 30.10.2006 wherein it was held that the physical stock verification done by the DGCEI Officers was erroneous and the allegations in the SCN are not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever. Accordingly, the demand proposed against GCPL was held to be unsustainable in law and the show-cause proceeding was dropped. 9. The Show Cause Notice dated 20.08.2004 issued by DGCEI to TCPL on the basis of search conducted on 25.09.2003 proposed to recover from them Rs. 66,99,793/- with interest and penalty under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld the value added Aluminium / Alloy Wire Rod manufactured from out of Aluminium Ingots o 99.7% purity to any other outside party. There is no allegation of the presence of any other Conductor manufacturer in the vicinity, to whom the Appellant could possibly sell such a huge quantities of Wire Rods without payment of duty. The SCN does not place on record any evidence of unaccounted procurement of Aluminium Ingots / other inputs by the Appellant and the source from which the Appellant could procure such unaccounted for Ingots/inputs for use in the clandestine manufacture of Wire Rods. There is no reference of any buyer who might have purchased the allegedly clandestinely removed Wire Rods by the Appellant. There is nothing on record to show unaccounted for receipt of sale proceeds by the Appellant from any source and there is nothing on record to corroborate clandestine manufacture of such huge quantity (493.404 MT) of Aluminium Wire Rods by the Appellant. 12. The impugned order finds that the aforesaid quantity of Aluminium Rods were actually not job work goods, but are in reality goods those have been manufactured and removed clandestinely by the Appellant (internal page 38 of ....