AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made thereunder? B. Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable upon any person without arriving at specific finding about the prior knowledge and/or reasons to believe about confiscable nature of any exercisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and/or Rules made thereunder? F. Whether the Ld. Tribunal below has miserably failed to follow their own Final Order No. 75583-75585/2020 dated 12.11.2020 passed in Excise Appeal No. 76211 of 2018 [M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit-III) v. Commissioner of CGST and CX, Bolpur Commissionerate], amongst others, whereat the Ld. Tribunal has held that the recoveries from the premises of M/s. Shree Parasnath Re-Rolling Mills Limited on 27.12.2012 cannot be relied upon to arrive at any adverse conclusion? G. Whether the rule of judicial discipline demands the Ld. Tribunal to follow their earlier order with respect to the similarly situated appellants more particularly when the earlier Final Order No. 75583-75585/2020 dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Ld. Tribunal in Excise Appeal No. 76211 of 2018 [M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit-III) v. Commissioner of CGST and CX, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... believe were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Further, the allegation was that the action of the appellant assessee was deliberate and the abetted SPRML in evasion of Central Excise Duty by contravening the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The appellant assessee did not submit their reply to the show-cause notice but had belatedly submitted a reply and after the Order-in-Original was passed by the adjudicating authority dated 27.11.2017. The adjudicating authority after noting the facts of the case as well as the other records held that it is evident that SPRML was involved in clandestine removal of wire rods without payment of duty which came to light from the data recorded in the search operations conducted on SPRML and also from the statement recorded from one Debasis Sasmal who was the Chief Financial Officer of SPRML who had admitted the clandestine removal. 6. Furthermore, the adjudicating authority referred to the statement recorded from the Managing Director of SPRML Anil Jain who admitted the practice of clandestine removal of MS wire rods and evasion of duty and SPRML voluntarily deposited an amount of Rs. 14.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is on the person who alleges and therefore the department has to prove the allegation of clandestine receipt of the impugned goods and except for the so called statement recorded from the proprietor of the appellant, there is nothing on record to establish the case of clandestine purchase. Further, it was contended that any entry made in any record or any other person namely SPRML is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of clandestine purchase. Therefore, it was contended that the show-cause notice which was issued was based on conjectures and surmises. Further, it was submitted that no evidence has been adduced to prove the allegation of involvement in the alleged fraud in so far as it relates to or has connection with the appellant assessee and the entire allegation is based on conjectures and surmises without any positive evidence. The assessee also referred to the other decisions of the Tribunal wherein the appeals of those assessees are allowed. The Tribunal by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. As mentioned above, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant pursuant to investigation being carried out at the premises of SPRM....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the manufactured goods out of the impugned wire rods purchased/received from SPRML without invoice, by selling the same in open market after realization of their profit element. The tribunal also noted that the prime accused in the case namely SPRML had voluntarily paid Rs. 14.50 crores towards the duty liability. Further the tribunal noted that there was no retraction on the statement which was recorded on 11.03.2014 and the contention of the assessee raised after three years and nine months after the incident at the appellate stage casting a shadow on the veracity of the statement cannot be held to be legally sustainable and this aspect was also dealt with by the Commissioner of Appeals and rejected. Thus, on facts the tribunal held that penalty was imposed on the assessee not solely based upon any statement of the co-accused but along with the statement of the proprietor of the appellant as well as the other records much of which are computerized records where the dates and other details cannot be altered. 11. On going through the facts which have been recorded by the adjudicating authority, it is seen that the proprietor of the appellant was confronted with the computerized....