2026 (3) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se are that the appellant, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of precision turned parts, had been availing exemption under Notification No.52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 and No.22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003. On completion of necessary investigation, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 16.08.2011 alleging that they had cleared steel / aluminium scrap without payment of duty of Rs.3,681/- for the period April 2007 to 23.01.2008 and duty of Rs.2,43,649/- for the period 24.01.2008 to 25.03.2009; also they had consumed 50348.986 kgs. of raw materials in excess of Standard Input Output Norms (SION) during the period April 2007 to 23.01.2008 and duty foregone on such excess raw materials amounting to Rs.4,55,365/- was demanded with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were cleared under the direct supervision of the officers who had verified the processes undertaken by the appellant. The appellant vide letter dated 24.01.2008 applied for fixation of ad hoc SION norms for scrap generation to the Assistant Development Commissioner, CSEZ, Bangalore. By letter dated 04.06.2009, the Assistant Development Commissioner, CSEZ, Bangalore approved the SION norms. Thereafter, investigation was initiated by the Department by recording statements of the Chief Executive Officer and Manager (Production) of the appellant about clearances of scrap from their factory. He has submitted that in the present proceeding, they are not disputing the demand of Rs.3,681/- and Rs.2,43,649/- being the duty payable on clearances of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith intention to evade payment of duty cannot be sustained. 4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant has not disputed the duty liability of Rs.3,681/- and Rs.2,43,649/- demanded and confirmed against them for clearances of scrap in excess of SION norms fixed; however, they have disputed the demand of Rs.4,55,365/- being the duty on the raw materials consumed in excess than the norm being attributable to generation of excess scrap, on which they have already discharged duty. 7. We find merit in the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that they have discharged duty on the....