TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise Act, 1944. He acknowledged to have entered all the purchasing details of TMT/CTD bars into a diary. The said diary got seized. On scrutiny thereof, it was noticed that the appellant had purchased TMT/CTD bars from different persons, namely, Shri Rao, Raipur, Maharaj Mishra, Bhilai Raipur, New Balaji, Raipur, Parihar, Raipur; during the period 22.05.2011 to 09.02.2013. 1.1 In his subsequent statement dated 21.02.2013, the appellant acknowledged purchasing the CTD/TMT bars from Shri Rao, Raipur, who is the proprietor of M/s Shri Sai Deva Steels, Raipur, a steel broker in Raipur. Therefore, Rao's premises were also got searched on 18.02.2013, under panchnama of 18.02.2013, drawn in presence of Shri Tirupati Rao, the proprietor of M/s Sai Deva Steels, and one another. A notebook was got seized, showing sale of total 643.195 metric tons [M.T] of CTD/TMT bars of different dimensions to different parties during period 09.11.2012 to 11.02.2013. Shri. Tirupati Rao vide subsequent statement dated 19-02-2013 again recorded in terms section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944, stated that mainly the purchases were made from M/s Swastik Rolling Mill, Rawa Bhata, Raipur and he himself ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.1. Learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is a small dealer engaged in trading of iron and steel products. He had not obtained the Central Excise registration as he did not pass the Cenvit credit of duty paid on the goods being traded by him. He otherwise had no knowledge of rules and regulations of Central Excise. It is further submitted that in earlier round of litigation, the Order in Appeal number 001-20-21 dated 29-04-2021 of Commissioner Appeals Raipur was set aside by this tribunal, vide final order no. 50010 of 2022, dated 06-01-2022, in Excise Appeal number 51176 of 2020. The tribunal had remanded the matter for denovo adjudication requiring the adjudicating authority to follow the procedure prescribed in section 9 D, else to discard the statements recorded. It is submitted, that findings of the original adjudicating authority in the order dated 31-7-2024 are not the proper compliance of the aforesaid direction. The order under challenge has upheld the aforesaid wrong findings. The Commissioner Appeal has also compiled with directions for the remand order dated 06-01-2022, passed by this tribunal which made it incumbent on the part of adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the present is the second round of litigation with respect to Show Cause Notice no. 8-1-2016 issued for the period 22-05-2011 to 09-02-2013, alleging the clandestine removal of CTD/TMT bars, without the invoices and without the payment of excise duty inviting penalty on the appellants, the purchaser thereof. The chronology of the events is as follows. Key Timeline: Date Event 14.02.2013 Preventive search at Bhagwati Traders; documents/statements seized. 08.01.2016 SCN issued demanding duty from Swastik Steels (Rs. 37,86,178 + Rs. 6,29,452 cess + interest); penalties: Bhagwati Rs. 3 lakhs, Sai Deva Rs. 2,000 under Rule 26 30.03.2019 OIO confirms demands/penalties 29.04.2020 Commissioner (Appeals) upholds penalties. Post-2020 CESTAT remands for de novo adjudication due to Section 9D non-compliance (mandatory opportunity for statement retraction). 16.04.2023 Appellant replies to SCN 31.07.2024 Fresh OIO reconfirms penalty on Bhagwati (Rs. 3 lakhs) 12.08.2024 OIO received by appellant. 24.09.2024 Appeal filed (Appeal No. 15/CE/2024) with Rs. 30,000 pre-deposit (>7.5% u/s 35F 20.01.2025 Personal hearing; AR S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable, statement can be relied as relevant for the sake of proceedings. I find hat in the impugned Show Cause Notice, statements of Partner of the Noticee No.2, Noticee No. 3 and Noticee No. 4 have been relied as evidence. Further, find that Noticees were requested to cause appearance on date 21.03.2024, 10.05.2024. 23.05.2024 and 25.07.2024 but none of them cause appearance The Noticee No. 3 chose to appear through the Authorized representative only and who at the time of their appearance, has not made any refutation regarding averments, made by the Noticees, in their statement recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. I find that the considerable time of four months from March-2024 to July-2024) has already lapsed and none of the Noticees have bothered to appear or make any communication. In view of above, I find that the statements of the Noticees recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise, Act, 1944 during the course of investigation, to be relevant for the present adjudication proceedings under the provisions of clause (a) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y corroboration documents are panchnamas. The only thing which gets proved is recovery of a diary from the appellant premises and that of notepad from the premises of M/s Sai Deva Steels. But the contents thereof doesn't get proved. It was also come on record that the proceedings against alleged manufacturer M/s Swastik Steels in the common offshoots of the impugned investigation have already been set aside. Hence, we are not able to see any direct evidence on record supporting the allegations of clandestine removal. Hon'ble apex court in the case of Oudh Sugarmills Ltd vs Union of India decided on 28.03.1962 has held that the allegations of clandestine production and removal cannot be sustained or inferential calculation on raw material input or the theoretical capacity/ working of machinery and that findings based on assumption/presumption without tangible evidence are legally invalid. It was also held that a physical shortage loan does not automatically equate to clandestine removal unless corroborated by evidence of elicit clearance and duty evasion. The Hon'ble apex court clarified that Revenue must prove illicit manufacture and clearance with concrete and tangible evidence. W....