TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed the records and documents and resumed some of the documents for further scrutiny. The officers also physically verified the stock of finished goods on basis of sectional weight-estimation, by measuring length and quantity of the billet and compared with the recorded balance. The stock of billet was calculated at 692.985 metric tons, whereas the recorded balance as on 08/01/2008 was 718.150 metric tons. Thus there appeared to be a shortage of billets by 25.030 metric tons. 3. On scrutiny of lose papers in file marked SP -1, invoices bearing i) serial No. 2429 dated 06/01/2008 (duplicate for transporter), page 269 of the file SP -1 and ii) invoice No. 2439 dated 07/01/2008 at page No. 275 of file SP -1, were found. It appeared these were issued for sale of 22.850 metric tons and 22.350 metric tons of sponge iron to m/s Sunil steels, Raipur. Similarly the original for buyer and duplicate for transporter copies of invoice No. 2360 dated 02/01/2008 was also found, even after lapse of 6 days from the date of issue. Further invoice No. 2439 dated 07/01/2008 (quadruplicate- extra copy) was found issued for captive consumption of 13.550 metric tons of billet (end cuttings). It app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. Further on cross verification of details relating to receipt of excisable goods - raw materials as per private records with their purchase invoices, it was found that incoming particulars in some of the entries tally with details in corresponding purchase invoices, but against 44.750 M.T. of scrap, 5.04 M.T. of silicon manganese, 33.740 M.T. of pig iron and 31.370 M.T. of sponge iron, no purchase invoice is available. 7. On scrutiny of the documents the officers came to the conclusion that the appellant No. 1 has clandestinely removed excisable goods without payment of central excise duty to M/s Sunil Steels (A sister concern of the appellant No.1) engaged in the manufacture of MS Billet and Re-rolled Products of Iron and Steel. In follow-up action, the Central Excise Officers conducted verification in the factory of M/s Sunil Steel on 11.01.2008 and withdrew some incriminating documents such as loose Papers, Notebooks etc. and Panchanama dated 11.01.2008 was prepared. In further follow-up action the officers visited the Registered/City office of the appellant - Sunil Sponge and withdrew certain incriminating documents and a CPU of the computer. On scrutiny and comparing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....group companies. 11. After considering the defence submissions the adjudicating authority dropped demand amounting to Rs.1,01,10,151 and confirmed Rs.17,41,352 besides interest and penalties. 12. In appeal on behalf of all the appellants, Ld. counsel Sh. Bipin Garg made issue wise submissions and also submitted a chart explaining the details of demand. Submissions of the counsel are as follows: (i) Rs.90,749/- : It was submitted that out of recorded quantity of Billet of 718.015 MT, on verification 692.985 MT was found hence there was a shortage of 25.030 MT, which comes to around 3.5% which is a meager shortage. It is also submitted that that there was no actual weighment but only on estimation basis. It was explained by Sh. Sunil Nachrani in his statement. Hence the demand is not sustainable. He relied upon the case of Super Iron Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2021 (378) ELT 180]. (ii) Rs.69,648/- : It is alleged that the appellants made clearances under parallel invoice No. 2360 dt. 02.01.2008. It was explained in the statement dt. 09.01.2008 by Shri Sanjay Nachrani that invoice No. 2360 dt. 02.01.2008 was issued in the name of M/s Sourav Roll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: Kaccha parchi shows the date 28.12.2007 whereas invoice No. 2303 issued on 29.12.2007. There may be mistake by wrongly mentioning the date in kaccha parchi or entry might be made on 28.12.2007. There is no evidence of clandestine clearance. (c) S. No. 3 of the chart: the goods were sold to M/s Iskan Strips. Loha Udyog is a broker through whom the goods were sold against proper invoice. Copy of Invoice issued to M/s Iskan Strips, Ledger and Bank Statement was submitted. (d) S. No. 4 to 6 of the chart : The demand has been raised on the basis of dispatch advice which is merely an instruction advice to dispatch department. It is not the document for removal of goods. However the goods at S.No. 5 were cleared to M/s Sunil Steel under invoice No. 1689 dt.27.10.2007 on payment of duty, which is on record. (v) Rs.38,58,809/- : Whole of the demand is dropped. (vi) Rs.10,88,887/- + 1,80,042/-: The allegation was that evasion of Central Excise duty of Rs.18,42,036/- and Rs.1,80,042/- in respect of Finished Goods and Inputs respectively, removed clandestinely. This allegation was made on the basis of incriminating records recovered from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear from the S.No.1 of the chart in Para 20.1. Whereas in Para 20.2 without any reason he confirmed the demand of Rs.68,524. (c) It is submitted that demand confirmed Rs.1,25,990 & Rs.68,524 (1,94,514) is not sustainable. 13. Learned Counsel submitted that there is no evidence of clandestine clearances and only on the basis of some unauthenticated rough note books resumed from the consignee M/s Sunil Steels, and some unauthenticated kaccha parchi/record resumed from the factory of the appellants, it is presumed that the appellants had cleared the goods clandestinely. It is important to submit that the department did not provide 'non-relied upon documents' even after directions given by this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is further submitted that originally total demand was of Rs.1,18,51,503 out of which the adjudicating authority was satisfied with the submissions of the appellants, however confirmed only an amount of Rs.17,41,352. 14. it is further submitted that neither the adjudicating authority examined the witnesses nor allowed cross examination. Only for this reason the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 15. The Authorized Representative of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sanjay Nachrani, Director had explained that the goods have been received back on the rejection by the buyer and further, in support thereof, submitted the goods receipt note for proper accounting of the same. I find that Revenue had not made further investigation in the matter nor I find the cogent explanation to be false. Thus, due to some error in record keeping or procedural lapse on the part of the appellant, the demand is held to be unsustainable. Accordingly, this ground is also allowed and the demand of Rs.54,554/- and Rs.32,603/- is deleted. 20. So far (the demand of 4th issue) of Rs.3,98,700/- is concerned, this demand has been confirmed out of the total alleged duty evaded of Rs.14,41,275/-, on the allegation of removal of excisable goods clandestinely. I find that the said demand has been confirmed on the basis of the kachcha parchi(s), which was found and resumed from the factory of the appellant during search. The appellant had given cogent explanation during investigation, that these kachcha parchies are not the statutory records or the records maintained on the instructions of the Management. These are generated by the staff at different sections of the unit for....