Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Dsr Steels (P) Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 9 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 9.5.2014
Appeal No. E/1274/2011-EX(SM)
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 101-102(DKV)CE/JPR-I/2011 dated 8.3.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur-I)
For Approval & signature :
Honble Ms. 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?
2.
Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?
M/s DSR Steels (P) Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance Shri Yogender Handoo, Advocate - for the appellant Shri M.S. Negi, A.R. - for the respondent CORAM:Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.52120/2014 Per Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides, I find that an amount of Rs.1,49,687/- stands confirmed against the appellant in respect of shortages detected by the officers at the time of visit in the appellants factory. Apart from the said shortages, there is no other evidence on record indicating any clandestine removal. The Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. Minakshi Castings 2011 (274) ELT 180 (All.) has held that the shortage by itself does not lead to inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal. By following the said order, I set aside the impugned confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty.
2. Further an amount of Rs.3,13,568/- stands confirmed against the appellant by disallowing the Cenvat credit of duty availed on the basis of invoices registered dealers, who, in turn has procured the material from M/s Pasondia Steel.
3. Both sides agree that the issue stands covered by various decisions of the Tribunal, based upon the same set of investigations. Revenues appeal in the case of CCE, Vs. M/s Mecawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd. was rejected vide Final Order No. 56654/2013 dated 3.6.2013. further I find that identical allegations made against the other similarly situate manufacturers were considered by the Tribunal in number of cases and it was held that as long as the manufacturer has procured the goods from the registered dealer, who has actually supplied the goods, the assessee cannot be expected to go beyond the dealer and find out as to whether, the procured goods were legitimately manufactured or not. One such decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. Juhi Alloys 2013 (296) ELT 533 (Tri.-Del.) stands confirmed by the Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE Vs. Juhi Alloys 2014 (302) ELT 487 (All.).
4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) RM 1