TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e common order as all these appeals arise out of common search for similar demand on same allegations. The appellants otherwise has applied for settlement under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. However, the discharge certificate has not been issued in their favour for want of requisite payments to be made prior to issue of discharge certificate. Vide order dated 12.7.2021 it is clear that learned Counsel appearing on behalf of these appellants had endorsed no objection for these appeals to be disposed of on merits. The appeals are accordingly adjudicated by the present common order. The facts relevant for the purpose are as follows: That the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Metal Steel ingots (MS ingots....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Order under challenge has been passed without appreciating the facts and the evidence. The elaborate reply to the respective show cause notices were submitted by the appellants denying the allegations. Demand still has been confirmed merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions and without even any corroboration to the statement of Shri S K Pansari, proprietor of M/s. Monu Steels Ltd. It is submitted that there is no evidence of manufacture and clandestine removal on record. The demand has wrongly been confirmed by the adjudicating authority below. It is also submitted that once the demand is not sustainable question of demand of interest imposition of penalty also does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aceuticals Co. vs. CCE Bombay reported as [1995 (78) ELT 401] has been impressed upon. Decision of Tribunal Bangalore in the case of GTN ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. CCE, Calicut [2006 (200) ELT 76] has also been impressed upon. Imposition of penalty has also been challenged while relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Veer Bahadur Products vs. CCE Kanpur reported as [2006 (201) ELT 359]. The appellants Shri S K Pansari, Proprietor M/s. Monu Steel have also laid emphasis upon Final order No. A/51186-51187/2018 SM(BR) dated 04.04.2018 and upon Final Order bearing No. A/52058-52063/2018 dated 29.05.2018 where the demand has been confirmed against the appellants based on records of M/s Monu Steels. Orders under challenge in respecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onducted investigation in this case with the search in the premises of M/s. Monu Steels. The appellant, Shri S K Pansari, proprietor of said propriety concern who apparently and admittedly was working as commission agent between the sellers and buyers of iron and steel products and used to get commission from either the seller or buyer or from both of them depending upon the finalisation of the deal and the nature of goods. During the said search, documents like diaries, files, ledgers etc. were recovered by the investigating team from the premises of M/s. Monu Steels under the Panchnama dated 15.1.2007. No doubt there have been final orders in favour of M/s. Shree Banke Bihari Ispat Ltd., Ispat India Raipur Shri Anush Choudhary Shri Syam I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sufficient admission for the alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of excise duty. The statement being given to Customs Officer is very much admissible in evidence. Reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jethmal vs Union of India reported in [1999 (110) ELT 379 (SC)] is held as correct. There is otherwise no retraction ever been made by Shri S K Pansari, the statement cannot be held to be made under pressure or coercion and thus is held to be sufficient proof of alleged clandestine removal of goods . Hence, I do not find any infirmity when the adjudicating authority has confirmed the alleged guilt based on said admission and the demand based on said statement has also been confirmed. 10. The benefi....