2026 (6) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able goods and also availing CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. On verification of the document, it is observed that during the period from May, 2004 to June, 2005, Appellant had removed scrap under non-returnable gate pass without raising central excise invoice as required and short paid duties. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 24.01.2005 and Adjudication authority as per Order dated 20.11.2006 confirmed the duty and also imposed penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals-I), vide OIA No. 143/2007 CE dated 17.08.2007, rejected the Appeal. On Second Appeal, this Tribunal as per Final Order No. 92/2008 dated 11.08.2008, held that: "3. We have carefully considered the submissions. They have produced enormous docu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entire allegation is based on the Audit conducted by the Revenue and without conducting any investigation, allegation of clandestine removal is alleged. Learned Counsel further submits that since the appellant have no facility for weighment of goods in their factory premises, some goods are sent for weighment on the basis of non returnable gate pass instead of returnable gate pass and as per the evidence produced by the appellant, it is proved that such goods are returned and thereafter cleared on payment excise duty as applicable. Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant had cleared scrap having value of Rs.4,36,247/- on which duty of Rs.69,881/-and Cess of Rs.754/- was duly discharged during the period from May 2004 to June 2005....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ELT 194 (P&H) 12. Flevel International vs. CCE - 2016 (332) ELT 416 (Del.) 13. Suntrek Aluminum Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC., CE & ST., Rajkot 2013 (288) ELT 500 (Guj.) 6. As regarding valuation learned counsel submits that highest value at the rate of Rs.29,018/- adopted in respect of each of the NRGPs solely on the basis of one invoice without considering the actual price of the scrap is highly unsustainable in law. 7. Learned AR reiterated the finding in the impugned order.   8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. The basic reason for proceeding against the Appellant is that they have removed scarp under non-returnable gate pass without raising central excise invoice as required and thereby suppressed the....