Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Shivalya Ispat & Power Ltd vs C.C.E., Raipur on 14 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 14.03.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/2899/2011 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.131&132/RPR-I/2011, dated 16.08.2011, passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Raipur-I]
M/s. Shivalya Ispat & Power Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Raipur Respondents
Appearance Shri Manish Sharan, Advocate - for the appellants Shri D Singh, DR - for the respondents CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.51183, dated 14.03.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron. Proceedings were initiated against them by confirming of demand of duty of Rs.52,533/- (Rupees fifty two thousand five hundred and thirty three only) on the allegations of clandestine removal, which in turn were based upon two parallel invoices, allegedly received by the Revenue from a non-informer. It is on record that the source of receipt of parallel invoices was not disclosed by the Revenue. As the name of the customer in the said invoices was shown as one M/s. Hanuman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., the Revenue made enquiries at their end. The Director of the said firm in his statement dated 26.03.209 and 22.05.2009 admittedly that they have received the said quantity of sponge iron from the appellants and have further used the same in the manufacture of their final product, i.e., MS Ingots, which stands cleared by them without payment of duty.
2. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellants, resulting in passing of the present impugned order.
3. After hearing both the sides, I find that the Revenues entire case is based upon the receipt of parallel invoices from non-informer source read with statement of the buyer admitting receipt of the said goods and non-entry of the same in their statutory records. It is seen that when the appellants were contacted, they did not give any inculpatory statement. It is also seen that no question was put to the representative of M/s. Hanuman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. as to how the payment for the said clandestinely received goods were made to the appellants. Further, even though the said invoices disclosed the truck numbers used for transportation of the clandestinely removed goods, no enquiries were made by the Department either from the truck owners or from the drivers or from the transport authorities. No statement of the employees of the appellants was recorded so as to indicate that there was clandestine manufacture and clearance of the said goods.
3. It is well settled law that the allegations of clandestine removal, being serious allegations, are required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and relatable evidences. The same cannot be upheld on the basis of doubts or assumptions and presumptions. I find that the evidence in the present case is insufficient and does not lead to inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-