AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys, etc. and were requiring M.S. Billets as a primary raw-material being procured by them from M/s Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. Raipur, and from the appellants. During search some loose papers were recovered showing clandestine procurement of these raw material and removal of finished goods by M/s RPSL that too without payment of Central Excise duty. 2.1 Panchnama dated 16/17.01.2015 was prepared wherein one of the loose papers was observed showing receipt of 204.820 MT Billets from the appellant received by M/s RPSL during the period from 27.10.2014 to 11.11.2014 which was found to be not accounted in the books of M/s RPSL nor they could produce the invoices of the appellant under which the aforesaid quantity of billets were received by M/s RPSL. No satisfactory answer was given to him by their Manager, Shri Mohan Kumar Mahato. It is thereafter that the factory premises of appellants were searched on 05.02.2015 and a Panchnama of the even date was prepared recording cross rectification of the stock of the finished goods and raw-material ascertained. 2.2 Certain shortages even of raw-material like silicon manganese, aluminium, ferro-silicon and CPC were also noticed by the dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the evidence on record with no infirmity therein, appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, perusing the appeal record and the order-under challenge, I observe that Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the recovery against the appellant and imposition of penalty on the appellant as well as its Director has relied upon : (i) the loose paper No.-5 (RUD2) as was recovered during the search of the premises of M/s Raipur Power & Steels Ltd., Rasmada. (ii) The statement of Shri Mohan Kumar Mahato, Manager (Excise) of M/s RPSL as was recorded on 17.01.2015 accepting clandestine receipt of 304.820 MT of MS Billets from the appellant. (iii) The fact that Shri Pankaj Sharma, Authorized signatory of appellant had deliberately prepared chart of selected consignments of MS Billets weighing 304.280 MT out of 444.20 MT of MS Billets cleared by the appellant on payment of duty during 09.10.2014 to 07.11.2014. 5. I observe that the only documentary evidence to proceed against the appellant is loose parchi No. 5 (RUD2) as recovered by the department during the search of premises of M/s RPSL recording the alleged shortage. App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ELT A130 (Del.) 7. Further admittedly details of the invoices issued by the appellant to M/s RPSL for delivery of MS Billets as raw material to them during the impugned period were provided by the appellant. Admittedly, those invoices show delivery of more raw material than is alleged to have been found clandestinely removed by the department. Those invoices have been set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) merely on the observation that the other details in the invoices do not match with the details on the loose parchi. It is the settled law of evidence that any evidence to be admissible has to be proved in corroboration. It is also the settled principle of evidence that a documentary evidence can be contradicted only by way of admissible documentary evidence no oral evidence can falsify the contents of the documentary evidence produced on record. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Gian Chand & Brothers Vs. Rattan Lal reported as (2013) 3 S.C.R 601 has held that the books of accounts maintained in regular course of business should not be rejected without any kind of rebuttal or discarded without any reason. 8. It is not the case of the department that the invoices produced by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed product receipt details from regular dealers/buyers. (vi) To find out the excess power consumptions. Thus, to prove the allegation of clandestine sale, further corroborative evidences as above, are also required. Apparently, there is no investigation as conducted by the Department qua any of said aspects. 9. In the absence thereof the fact remains that there is no corroborative evidence to the loose parchi recovered by the department that to from the premises other than that of the appellant. The same cannot be relied upon. These findings have repeatedly been taken by various branches of this Tribunal. One such decision is of the case Sona Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commisioner Central Excise, Ludhiana reported as 2016 (340) ELT 613 Tribunal Chennai where it was held that in absence of corroborative evidence the kacha slip which is a third-party evidence cannot be a good piece of evidence to allege against the assessee, clandestine removal of the goods. In view of the entire above discussion, the impugned demand of Rs. 13,74,436/- is opined as wrongly confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). 10. Now coming to the demand of Rs. 2,17,790/- as confirmed by the depa....