2020 (7) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gots and TMT Bars, flats, challans etc., that the Central Excise Officers of Headquarter Preventive Branch, Raipur visited the premises of M/s. PIL inspected and verified the documents and also verified the stock of raw-material as well as the finished goods on 12.04.2012. Shortage of 1066.615 M.T. M.S. Ingots valued at Rs. 3,57,31,603/- and that of 9.695 MT TMT Bar valued at Rs. 3,64,290/- and 219.56 MT Sponge Iron valued at Rs. 52,07,963/- was noticed. The incriminating documents were recovered vide Panchnama dated 12.04.2012. Statement of Director of M/s.PIL, namely, Shri Pankaj Agrawal, was recorded on 19.09.2012 and 02.10.2012 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The Scrutiny of documents and further investigation reve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es were made. There is no other corroborative evidence on record to prove the allegations as have been confirmed by the lower appellate authority below. She further submitted that Order-in-Original was rightly passed by Assistant Commissioner dropping the proceedings. Order is, accordingly, prayed to be set aside. Appeal is, therefore, prayed to be allowed. They have relied upon the following case laws for their support:- i. K.T.M.S. Mohammed & Another vs. Union of India - 1992 (40) ECC 352 ii. Kumar Trading Company vs. CCE, Lucknow - 2008 (230) ELT 240. iii. Agrasen Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2003 (154) ELT 431 (Tri.- Bangalore) iv. CCE, Haldia vs. Lord's Chemicals Ltd. - 2009 (245) ELT 695 (T. Kol.) v. Kothari Pouches....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al's decision in the case of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-I - 2016 (335) ELT 297 (Tri.-Del.), CCE & ST, Raipur Vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE & ST, Ludhiana Vs. Anand Founders & Engineers - 2016 (331) ELT 340 (P&H). It stand held in all these judgements that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents, unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. 7. There is no other evidence or document in the form of stock verification of the raw-material of the appellant and the material supplied to M/s. PIL nor any evidence about usage of any transportation by the appellants for transporting the alleged quantity ....