Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shubh Labh Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Raipur on 30 March, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT III
Excsie Appeal No.E/53530/2015-EX [SM]
Excsie Appeal No.E/53531/2015-EX [SM]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Excsie Appeal No.E/53530/2015-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP- 090 15-16 dated 16 -06- 2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Raipur]
Shubh Labh Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Raipur Respondent
Excsie Appeal No.E/53531/2015-EX [SM] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP- 104 15-16 dated 18 -06- 2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Raipur] Sajjan Kumar Berlia, Director Appellant Vs. CCE & ST, Raipur Respondent Present for the Appellant : Ms. Neha Meena, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Bhatnagar, D.R. Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 30.03.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. ___55273-55274/2016_ PER: S.K. MOHANTY Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 30.12.2011, the officers of the DGCEI visited the business premises of one M/s. Indian Steel, Raipur and seized several records and documents. It is revealed from the said seized records that M/s. Indian Steel cleared 92.200 M.T. of Sponge Iron to the appellant without issuing Central Excise invoices. The said officers interrogated Shri Sajjan Kumar Berlia, Director of the appellant company (Appellant No.2). It has been alleged that the appellant company had manufactured 77.448 M.T. of M.S. Ingots, out of 92.200 M.Ts of Sponge Iron received from M/s. Indian Steel and subsequently cleared without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.2,29,746/- alongwith interest and also appropriated the amount deposited by the appellant. It has also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the appellant company and penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the appellant No.2. It has ordered confiscation of 77.448 M.T. of M.S. Ingots and imposed redemption fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. By the impugned order, the Commissioners (Appeals) set aside the redemption fine and otherwise the appeals were rejected.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The main contention of the ld. Counsel is that the demand was raised on the basis of third party evidence. The DGCEI Officers had not visited the factory premises and the records of the appellant were not allow for corroboration. The statement of the appellant No.2 is un-corroborated in nature.
4. I find that the proceedings were initiated against the other assessees on the basis of search and enquiry with reference to activities of Indian Steels, Raipur. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Raipur Forgings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CCE Raipur-I vide Final order No.A/50184-50189/2016-SM (BR) dated 21.01.2016 allowed the appeal. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:-
As mentioned earlier in the present case, inquiries started with the manufacture of sponge iron and certain private records were recovered from the pen drive, statements of the manufacturer recorded regarding various unaccounted clearances. These are third partys records and evidence, which require corroboration. In the present case, the corroboration said to have been made is the admission statement of the appellant/assesses. Revenue stopped investigation on recording statement. No further verification or evidence was sought to be recovered for the clandestine manufacture, first of M.S. Ingots and thereafter, from M.S. Ingots to M.S. Angles, etc. and thereafter, their unaccounted clearance to various buyers. No verification was made in the appellants manufacturing unit or in their records. The admission made by the Director or Partners of the appellant /assesses gives a strong indication of the clandestine activity of the appellant /assessee. However, that by itself cannot be conclusive evidence especially, as the product on which duty is demanded is M.S. Angles and Channels, etc., which are made from M.S. Ingots, which are in turn made from purported clandestinely received sponge iron. The statements did not provide details of receipts with dates, manufacture or sale to identifiable buyers etc. It is essential to have some piece of corroboration for such a clandestine activity other than the sole evidence of general admission statement of the Director or /partner. The contents of the statement itself was contested and denied later
5. In view of the above decision, I am of the view that the impugned orders can not be sustained. The appeals filed by the appellants are allowed.
[Operative part pronounced in the Open Court] (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 2