AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of Rs. 29,82,117/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs, eighty two thousand, one hundred and seventeen only) on M/s. Lai Steel Pvt. Ltd. Under Section 1lAO of Central excise Act, 1944. c. The assessee is to pay interest under Section 1lAB of the Central excise Act, 1944, on the duty demanded. d. I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on M/s. Lai Steels Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001. e. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each on Mr.Rathan Lai Tantia and Mr. Abuthahir, under Rules 173Q and 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Rule 25 & 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 & 26 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001. 2.1 These proceeding were undertaken by the Additional Commissioner as per the remand order of Tribunal making observations as follows: On a careful consideration and perusal of both the orders, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Commissioner 'Appeals) is not a speaking order. The Revenue has relied on large pieces of evidence to establish the allegation of clandestine removal. The most important evidence is of higher electric consumption. The Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... showed that raw materials were in fact transported from M/s. Southern Ispat Ltd almost on all working days but the assessee did not account for it in full in the raw material register. The assessee appears to have received 3570 MT of M.S Steel ingots but accounted for only receipt of 1069.87 the differential quantity of 2500 MT was used for unaccounted production and clandestine removal of finished goods. (ii) The receipt of ingots from M/s. Southern Ispat Ltd is confirmed even by its Manager and he recognized the vehicle Reg.No. KL-9L-1625 that used to transport the ingots from the said factory and its Driver. Non appearance of the number of this vehicle in the whole weighment receipts shows arrival of unaccounted ingots from the said factory almost on all working days. The assessee failed to show satisfactorily what happened to the unaccounted ingots received by them or how they have disposed it. M/s. Southern Ispat has confirmed receipt of freight charges for the above truck but no transaction exists in the ledger of M/s. Lal Steels. The ingots from M/s. Southern Ispat were used for manufacturing goods for clandestine removal. These evidences were not examined by the Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that no limit for consumption has been fixed by the Commissioner and that no expert opinion has been taken have no relevance in this case as every increase in per tonne consumption ought to have corresponding increase in the production of finished goods. All the likely reasons stated by the assessee for increase in consumption of electricity without any increase in production were examined in detail and found that all the reasons were assumptions that have no effect on the production of finished goods in the relevant period. (ix) In the remand order the Hon'ble Tribunal had observed that the "revenue relied on large pieces of evidences to establish the allegation of clandestine removal "and that all the evidences were not looked into by the Commissioner (Appeals)". In the present Order-in-Appeal also the Commissioner (Appeals) relying largely on the observation of his predecessor made at the time of setting aside the order-in-original erred in appreciating the evidences produced by the Department to establish the clandestine removal. 4.1 We have heard Sh. K. Murali, AR for the Department and Sh. Sam Derrick, Advocate for the appellants. 4.2 Arguing for the Revenue, Ld. AR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion that remand cannot be sustained. iv. In case of his own sister concern, namely Palakad Street RA Ltd. on whom the demand in the similar manner made the same was dropped by the Joint Commissioner and Revenue has not filed any appeal against the same. He accordingly prayed that appeals may be dismissed. 5.1 We have heard submissions of both sides. 5.2 We find that from Para 4 of the remand order that matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to render a finding in respect of power consumption specifically. The respondents have made detailed submissions in this regard, however, adjudicating authority has dealt the entire submission on the issue of power consumption in Para 14 of his order stating as follows: "The factors causing variation of power consumption explained by the assessee against serial numbers "a" to "m" above are elaborately discussed by the original authority in the Order-in-Original and have been found unsustainable as there was no merit in such arguments." 5.3 For making such observations, Original Authority has relied upon the Order-in-Original which has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeal) long back and the order of the Commissioner (A....