TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Foods Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'EFPL') at Jagatpur, Cuttack. Various records were recovered and seized, Panchanama was drawn and seizure list was also prepared during the search at the premises of M/s. EFPL; some loose sheets and two notebooks were also recovered and seized. The said documents were containing entries on different dates. 2.1 The Officers of the Department also recorded statements of Shri Subhrajeet Sahoo, Director of the appellant-company, who could not say as to whether these documents were relating to the appellant-firm or not. He also stated that one Shri Sanjay Kumar Sahoo was associated with their company and was advising relating to costing in relation to some activities of the appellant and the Managing Director sometimes used to discuss at the premises of M/s. EFPL. 2.2 The statement of Shri Sanjay Kumar Sahoo, Director of M/s. EFPL, was also recorded, who stated that some of the documents were relating to money receipt, statement and costing of power plant and also costing of Sponge Iron, TMT Rods and Ingots and sale order of TMT Rods and Sponge Iron. He had expressed his inability regarding as to who had written those documents a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the issue, the respondent did not give any importance to the said request. He contended that it is the settled position of law that scribing in notebooks when no examination and no corroborative evidence is available in respect of purchase of raw materials, sale and purchase by any particular person or transportation of goods, the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained. 5.2 It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence that during the relevant period, more than 3100 M.T. of Sponge Iron had been manufactured and removed. He further stated that the respondent did not record any statement from any supplier of raw materials or from the buyers of the goods; there is no evidence as to receipt of the sale consideration, transportation of goods, disproportionate procurement of goods, consumption of electricity, etc., available in this case. 5.3 He also stated that the names of the buyers have appeared in the Annexure annexed to the Show Cause Notice, but no investigation was made in respect of the buyers of the said goods as alleged; there is no evidence except the rough entries in the notebooks, which are no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of C.Ex., Jaipur-I v. Sumetco Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (230) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. - Del.)] xv. Rina Dyeing & Printing Works v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Surat-I [2007 (209) E.L.T. 190 (Tri. - Mum.)] xvi. Commissioner of C.Ex. v. Brims Products [2011 (271) E.L.T. 184 (Pat.)] xvii. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh v. Gurmeet Singh [2014 (312) E.L.T. 689 (Tri. - Del.)] 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard the parties. 8. We have gone through the records placed before us as well as the arguments advanced by both the sides. In this case, the charge has been made against the appellants that they were engaged in the activity of clandestine removal of goods on the basis of certain documents recovered from the premises of M/s. EFPL, Jagatpur, Cuttack, a sister concern of the appellant-company. We have gone through the scribing in the said loose sheets and notebooks recovered from the said premises. One such sample scribe is as under: - 9. The Revenue alleged that on these documents, certain truck numbers and quantity along with dates have been me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 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. 13. Thus, to prove the allegation of clandestine sale, further corroborative evidence is also required. For this purpose no investigation was conducted by the Department. 14. In the instant case, no investigation was made by the Department, even the consumption of electricity was not examined by the Department who adopted the short cut method by raising the demand and levied the penalties. The statement of so called buy....