TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rwal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from 4,69,148/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). Since the investigation and the evidence collected in the present case relates to both the parties, therefore both the appeals are being taken up together for discussion and disposal. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the Appellant No. (1) is engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was registered under Central Excise Department and are clearing the goods on payment of excise duty. The officers of the DGCEI, Hyderabad Region conducted investigation at the end of M/s. Shivam Sm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner (Appeals) Belgaum and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 rejected the appeal of the Appellant No. (1) but in the case of Appellant No. (2), the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law as the same have been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the demand has been confirmed solely on the basis of the statement of the Managing Director who was made to admit the duty liability by using force. He further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I V. Vishnu & Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (332) E.L.T. (793) g. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 595 (All.) h. Commissioner Vs. Motabhai & Steel Industries - 2015 (316) E.L.T. 374 (Guj.) i. Amba Lal Vs. UOI & Others - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 652 (Bom.) j. CCE, Meerut-I Vs. R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (26) S.T.R. 262 (All.) k. Balashri Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2017 (345) E.L.T 187 (Jhar.) l. Om Shanti Steel & Casting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2017 (347) E.L.T 441 (Jhar.) m. CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Nachiketa Paper Ltd. - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 194 (P&H) n. Flevel International Vs. CCE - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 416 (Del.) 3.1. He also submitted that burden of proving the allegatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the document recovered from the residence of Govind Kumar Agarwal also established the receipt of sponge iron from the appellant. For this submission, he has relied upon the following case-laws: a. CCE, Mumbai Vs. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (270) E.L.T. 643 (S.C) b. Sri Rama Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai-l - 2017 (348) E.L.T. 540 (Tri.-Chennai) c. CC, Mangalore Vs. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 378 (Kar.) d. JSW Steel Limited V. Commissioner - 2017 (346) E.L.T. A138 (S.C) e. CCE & C, Aurangabad Vs. Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.) f. CCE & Cus., Calicut Vs. General Manager, Telecom, BSNL - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 450 (Ker.) 5. After consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alleged removals, the department has not investigated the following aspects : (i) To find out the excess production details. (ii) To find out whether the excess raw materials have been purchased. (iii) To find out the dispatch particulars from the regular transporters. (iv) To find out the realization of sale proceeds. (v) To find out finished product receipt details from regular dealers/buyers. (vi) To find out the excess power consumptions. 13. Thus, to prove the allegation of clandestine sale, further corroborative evidence is also required. For this purpose no investigation was conducted by the Department....