TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken together for decision, since all of them are arising out of common impugned Order-in-Original No.38/Commissioner/Hapur/2014-15 dated 26/11/2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hapur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Giriraj Irosteel Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') were engaged in the manufacture of MS Bars and MS Ingots. They were registered with Central Excise and were paying Central Excise duty and were also filing ER-1 returns regularly. Appellant entered into an agreement with M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s KIL') on 07.05.2007 and as per the said agreement appellant was entitled to use trademark 'Kamdhenu' on the goods manufactured by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of the difference between the details of royalty payment provided by him and available in the retrieved data, he informed that he had no knowledge about the same and stated that the appellant had paid royalty and service charge as per the chart provided by him which tallied with their ledger and bills raised by M/s KIL. In his statement dated 05.05.2012 Shri Deepak Maheswari, Accountant stated that the payments to M/s KIL were made through bank only and no cash payment was ever made in respect of royalty. On the basis of difference between royalty payments reflected in the books of account of appellant and those in the retrieved statement, it appeared to revenue that appellant had paid royalty both through cheque and cash and total r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 15.11.2018 and the same is distinguishable from the present matter. In the said matter of M/s Advance Impex Pvt. Ltd. the merits were not contested and this Tribunal had observed that the appellant had not contested the aspects of manufacturer such as consumption of raw material, consumption of electricity, transport of goods and availability of customers to whom such goods were cleared and therefore, M/s Advance Impex Pvt. Ltd. did not make out a case for inference. However, in the present case the appellant is contesting on the merit as well as time bar and therefore, the present case is distinguishable as compared to the case of M/s Advance Impex. She has further submitted that on visit by officers to the manufacturing facility....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e absence of such evidences the clandestine manufacture cannot be established. She has further submitted that the records of M/s KIL were resumed on 12.11.2008 whereas the show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 02.05.2013 and therefore, the present show cause notice is barred by limitation particularly when ER-1 returns were filed in time and the information submitted in the said ER-1 returns was not disputed by Revenue during relevant time. 4. Ms Surbhi Sinha has submitted that Shri Suneel Kumar Agarwal was director of M/s KIL and he has been penalized in the present proceedings for helping the appellant to evade payment of Central Excise duty. She submitted that since the clandestine manufacture is not established the questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lleged excess payment of royalty charges, revenue has calculated the quantity of goods on which such royalty charges were paid and compared the said quantity with the quantity reflected in the records of the appellant and on the balanced quantity demanded Central Excise duty. For demand of such Central Excise duty, revenue has not produced any evidence about the excess production of Final product nor produced any evidence in respect of procurement of excess raw material. There is no evidence on record about the dispatch of excess quantity of goods through the transporters. Further, customers were also not identified and the consumption of power was also not taken into consideration. We note that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of C....