2019 (6) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts of the case are that the Appellant No.1 was engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Based on intelligence, the officers of DGCEI visited the factory premises of the Appellant No.1 for conducting investigation. On scrutiny of the finished product register for the period 22.08.2010 to 14.11.2010 and Gate Register for the period 10.08.2010 to 20.11.2010 vis-a-vis the Cenvat invoices, it was observed that the Appellant No.1 had purchased scrap from various suppliers and camouflage the said purchase with invoices of Appellant No.3; that the Appellant No.1 had purchased M.S. Scrap from various suppliers, who were not registered with Central Excise Department and therefore, di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rought on any evidence regarding all the 36 vehicles, which were not capable of carrying the consignment in question. With regard to pre-fabricated structures, he submitted that the said goods were received and accounted for under the head "inputs" in the books of accounts maintained in the factory. Thus, he submitted that the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellants would not be sustained. 4. On the other hand, the Learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since the department had confirmed the adjudged demands based on proper investigation into the matter regarding non-receipt of the duty paid goods in the factory of the Appellant No.1, the impugned order c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he proper enquiry inasmuch as in some of the cases, the quantities of goods did not match and wrong mention of vehicle nos. in some other cases, I do not find credence in such submissions. The investigation conducted by the department and the material evidences brought on record were not disputed by the appellants at any point of time, either at the adjudication or the first appeal stage. The law in this context in well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Bhoormal - 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (S.C.) that the department is not required to prove a case of mathematical precision and is required to prove a case with the pre-ponderance of probabilities. In this case, I find that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has thoroughly examine....