TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case are as under :- 2.1 On scrutiny of the Financial records for the 2006-07 (Additional Information under part-II of the Schedule VI to the company Act, 1956 and Form 3CD, at the time of examination of the records of the appellant under Rule 22 of the said Rules, it was observed that the appellant had shown production of Steel Ingot at 13800.355 MT and steel rolled product at 10842.822 MT. Whereas, from the daily stock account maintained under Rule 10 of central excise rules, 2002, the production of steel ingot was shown as 12345.150 MT and steel rolled products as 10447.662 MT. Hence, it appears that in the daily stock accounts, the appellant had suppressed the production of 1455.205 MT of steel ingots and 395.160 MT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 MT. Thus as sale of 395.05 MT of rolled product were not reflected in the daily stock account which appears to have been cleared without payment of duty amounting to Rs.14,60,990.00/- as basic + Rs.29220.00/- as E.Cess + Rs.14610.00/- as S&HE Cess, totaling to Rs.15,04,820.00. 2.4 The calculation of evasion of central excise duty by the appellant, the involvement of duty in respect of removals of MS ingot and steel rolled product has been done on the basis of the assessable value of the concerned goods as reflected in the central excise invoice No.804 dt.15.02.2007 and invoice No. 911 dt.27.03.2007. 3. It was alleged that the appellant has suppressed the fact from the central excise department by not mentioning the production ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r take note of the fact that apart from difference in figures of financial records and ER-1 return, no investigation was conducted to establish clandestine removal of goods which is serious allegation. No statement of has been recorded. In that circumstances the charge of clandestine removal of goods not sustainable as similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Chanduka Hi-Tech Steel Pvt.Ltd. v. CESTAT, Kolkata, wherein by Final Order NO.FO/7766/2017 this Tribunal has observed as under:- "3. After going through the impugned order and after appreciating the submissions made by both sides, I note that admittedly, the findings of the lower authorities are solely based upon the Sales Tax Returns' figures. The Tribunal's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the goods, the following requirements are to be considered. "12. Further, unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be 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 ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants. We also find that in view of the above, timely scrutiny of Returns by the Department would have shown that there is huge accumulated credit; Department was free to further investigate the matter and issue timely SCN. In view of the same, we find that the appellants have a strong case on limitation too and the SCN is barred by limitation. In the result, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not survive on merits as well as limitation." 11. As revenue has raised the demand only on the basis of difference in the figures of audit report and ER-1 return which were available with them in time, in that circumstances as held by this Tribunal in the case Tally Solutions Pvt.Ltd. (supra) the extended period of ....