TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 902
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter software "Tally" by Appellant), was found short by 18,456.33 SQMT as compared to stock reflected in RG-I. Shortage of finished Decorative Laminates of 18456.33 SQMT was valued at Rs. 14,87,950/-, which was allegedly cleared without invoices and without payment of duty [@12.5%]. Duty on shortage of goods worked out was Rs. 1,85,994/-. Further, officers also found 61 Gate Passes (GP) and alleged clearance of the manufactured finished goods valued at Rs. 71,17,127/-, involving total excise duty of Rs. 8,89,640/-. The duty liability of total Rs. 10,75,634/- (Rs. 1,85,994/- + Rs. 8,89,640/-), in dispute, was reversed from CENVAT Credit Account vide the debit Entry No. JV/026 during Panchnama on 03.05.2017. Show Cause Notice dated 18-12-2019 demanded total Central Excise duty of Rs. 10,75,634/-and Order-in-Original dated 04.12-2020 confirmed the same with equal penalty and also a separate penalty of Rs. 10,75,634/- on Appellant Shri Ravindra Tantia, Director, looking after day to day affairs of the Company. First Appeal filed by both the Appellants against the Order-in-Original dated 04.12.2020, were disposed off vide the Order-in-Appeal No.AHM-EXCUS-002-APP-015-016-2021-22 dated 07.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of finished goods was found on 03.05.2017 and clandestine clearance of manufactured goods against Gate Passes seized has also been accepted in statement recorded on 03.05.2017. The Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to original adjudicating authority, but not rejected. Hence, submissions made by Appellants are untenable and accordingly he submits that their Appeals may be rejected. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that Appellant's Factory was searched on 03.05.2017.Duty @ 12.5 % on shortage of finished Decorative Laminates of 18456.33 SQMT valued at Rs. 14,87,950/- was worked out to be Rs. 1,85,994/- and another duty demand is Rs. 8,89,640/-, alleging clandestine removal of finished goods, based on 61 Gate Passes (GP) seized from factory on 03-05-2017. Total duty Rs, 10,75,634/-(Rs. 1,85,994/- + Rs. 8,89,640/-), was reversed from Cenvat Credit Account vide Entry No. JV/026 during Panchnama on 03-05-2017. Further, an inculpatory statement of Shri Ravindra Tantia, Director, was recorded on 03.05.2017. 6.1 I find that Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 07-09-2021, has remanded this case to Original Adjudicating Authority giving his findi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalysis of records correctly in order to come to rational inference and conclusion whether Appellants had indulged in the alleged clandestine manufacture and/or clandestine removal of the goods. Accordingly, since the case has reached in this Tribunal, it would also be appropriate to finally decide the case in this Tribunal as the final fact finding authority in the facts and law. 6.2 I find that Appellant has contended that Copies of relied upon documents seized on 03.05.2017 have not been provided despite oral and written requests made by Appellant from the date of seizure for such documents. Appellant has also submitted copies of their letters dated 06.09.2018, 10.04.2019, 02.02.2019 and 25.10.2019 in the Company's Appeal at page Nos. 79 to 83. There is no denial of this fact of non supply of relied upon documents by the Revenue. I find that duty demand of Total Rs. 8,89,640/- is based on 61 Gate Passes (GP), seized from the factory on 03-05-2017 and non supply of the said 61 Gate Passes(GP) is clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the Order-in-Original dated 04-12-2020deserves to be set aside on this very ground. I find that in connection with the duty deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only few officers were present and they had not carried out any physical verification of all goods lying in factory on 03.05.2017. I find that Notarised Affidavit by Director Shri Ravindra Tantia is also submitted in Company's Appeal. Appellant has submitted that for manufacture of 18456.33 SQMT finished goods, they would require quantity of raw materials as shown in Appeal and investigation has not adduced any evidence of excess procurement and use of Raw materials, packing materials. I find that Appellant has also submitted that levy of duty is on actual manufacture of goods and no manufacture of goods can be proved without proving excess procurement and use of excess Raw materials, packing materials, electricity consumption, men power etc. Therefore, it is contention of Appellants that when production of goods is not proved first, alleged clandestine removal of such goods is consequently not proved. Investigation has not adduced any such evidences on record to prove their case. I find that in absence of any such corroborative clinching, positive evidences of excess procurement and use of required Raw materials, packing materials and confirmation from buyers of receipt of such cl....