AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or five of these appeals. The facts relevant for the present adjudication are as follows: That M/s. H R Steel Pvt. Ltd. (appellants in Appeal No. 50759/ 2021) is engaged in manufacture of TMT bars, MS bars. They were inquired by DGCEI, Delhi vide letter dated 23.05.2016 about the search as was conducted in the premises of M/s. Golden Iron & Steel Works (M/s. GI&SW) on 26.9.2013 by DGCEI itself. During the said search from the documents recovered, DGCEI formed an opinion that the M/s. GI&SW had evaded the Central Excise duty by way of clandestine removal of their finished goods i.e. MS ingots. M/s. H R Steel was their one of the purchaser. Another purchaser of the name M/s. RGTL Ind Ltd. was also inquired. 2. In response to the aforesaid l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also proposed to be imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with section 11 AC (1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty upon Shri Harish Dang, Director and Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Manager of HR Steels under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules was proposed to be imposed, also upon Shri Kunal Keshav Manchanda and Shri Dhruv Manchanda, the partners of M/s. GI&SW. The demand was initially confirmed vide Order-in- Original No. 03/ 2018-19 dated 01/08/2018. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide Order-in- Appeal No. 283-287/2019 dated 15.10.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order that five of the appellants therein have approached this Tribunal vide the aforementioned five appeals. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 51565/2019 Ex(SM) dt 23.10.2019 2. Rooplaxmi Industries India Pvt Ltd. vs CCE Final Order No. 51591/2019 Ex(SM) dt. 30.10.2019 3. Shri Shyam Ingot & Casting Pvt Ltd. vs CCE Final Order No. 50678/2022 Exc (SM) dt 30.08.2022 The order under challenge is therefore prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While submitting about Shri Kunal Keshav Manchanda and Dhruv Manachanda, partners of M/s. GI&SW, learned Counsel has mentioned that there is no iota of evidence against any of these partners. Even Shri Vikam Singh Bisht, whose statement has been relied upon by the department has not deposed about both these appellants to have ever been concerned with the impugned goods in any of the ways as are mentioned in Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the search being conducted not in the premises of M/s. H R Steel Pvt Ltd. but in the premises of M/s GI&SW and in the premises of transporter of said M/s. GI&SW i.e,. Shree Ram Transporting Co. I further observe that the sole basis for confirmation of demand herein is the document recovered from the premises of Shree Ram Transporting Co. i.e. 'Mangla register' and the statements of Shri Vikram Bisht, of GI&SW, Shri Rohtas Bidhuri and Shri Suparas Banthia. No doubt the said 'Mangla register' is observed to show that total sale of MS ingots of M/s. GI&SW to the appellant during the period July 2012 to August 2012 was 220.530 MT of MS Ingot from M/s. GI&SW and 517.490 MT during the period from 01.04.2013 to 24.09.2013 as contrary to the depo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alleged removals, the department has not investigated the following aspects : (i) To find out the excess production details. (ii) To find out whether the excess raw materials have been purchased. (iii) To find out the dispatch particulars from the regular transporters. (iv) To find out the realization of sale proceeds. (v) To find out finished product receipt details from regular dealers/buyers. (vi) To find out the excess power consumptions." 8. In the present case, I do not find any other evidence or document in the form of some verification of the raw material of appellant or the material rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e goods. " 9. In view thereof, I hold that duty demand has wrongly been confirmed against M/s. H R Steels Pvt. Ltd. Once there is no evidence of any clandestine removal or duty evasion, as alleged, by M/s. H R Steels Pvt Ltd., no question arises for imposition of penalty on its Director or the Manager. Resultantly, the order imposing penalty on Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Manager and Shri Harish Dang, Director is also held to be not sustainable. 10. Coming to the aspect of penalty imposed upon the partners of M/s. GI&SW, apparently M/s. GI&SW is not a co-noticcee in the present case despite that the search was conducted in their premises. The penalty imposed upon both of its Directors have been confirmed under Rule 26 of CE Rules, 2002. The....