2019 (2) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he period from February 2014 to October 2014 along with interest and also penalty of 25%. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'MS Billets' falling under Chapter heading 72 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of Audit, it was observed that the appellant had not paid Central Excise duty on MS scrap cleared by them to various customers. The appellant had procured both dutiable and non-dutiable MS scrap from the local market, but had not maintained proper records regarding the receipt and clearances of duty paid and non-duty paid scrap. The appellant had cleared MS scrap without payment of duty. Further, they failed to produce the regis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable and the Commissioner (A) dropped the demand from April 2012 to January 2014 and upheld the demand only for the normal period from February 2014 to October 2014 for which he remanded the matter to the Original Authority. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by the Commissioner (A) without appreciating the facts and the documentary evidences produced by the appellant before him. He further submitted that the findings in the impugned order are contradictory. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) in Para 16 has abruptly come to the conclusion ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tware of MS Scrap sold without payment of duty on the assessable value. He also submitted that the entire record was submitted to the Commissioner (A) also for verification but the same was not verified and the Commissioner (A) has, without any basis, come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to submit proper explanation for clearance of the scrap without payment of duty for the period February 2014 to October 2014. Therefore, as per Ld. Counsel for the appellant, the entire demand is based on surmises and conjectures. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • Commr. of C.Ex. and Customs Vs. Swati Polyester, 2015 (321_ ELT 423 (Guj.). • Modern Denim Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex.....