Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Kamboj Ispat P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 5 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I Appeal No. E/1728, 1729/10, 86420, 86421/13 (Arising out of Orders-in-Original No. 38/2010/C dated 18.05.2010 and 20/2012/C dated 19.03.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Nagpur) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) ================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
Kamboj Ispat P. Ltd.
Shri Chatar Singh Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai Respondent Appearance:
Shri B. Santhanam, Advocate for appellant Shri Hitesh Shah, Commr (AR) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 05.11.2015 Date of Decision: 31.12.2015 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran These four appeals are directed against orders-in-original No. 38/2010/C dated 18.05.2010 and 20/2012/C dated 19.03.2012.
2. As the issue involved in all these appeals is same and in respect of the very same assessees hence the appeals are disposed of by a common order.
3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are M/s. Khamboj Ispat Pvt Ltd. (main appellant) herein are manufacturer of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA) using electric induction furnace. Based upon an intelligence that the main appellant is evading Central Excise duty by clandestine manufacturing and clearing of the said M.S. Ingots, Preventive Officers of the Commissionerate paid a visit to the factory premises of the main appellant. During the visit, the stocks were verified and it was found that there was a shortage of raw materials and excess of finished goods. The excess stock was seized and investigation was continued and statements of Manager, various signatories and Directors were recorded. On completion of investigation, they noticed that appellant had not recorded the production in their factory premises and clandestinely removed the goods. To come to such conclusion they relied upon the electricity consumption and the statements of various transporters. Show-cause notices were issued to the main appellant and the Director to show cause as to why the duty calculated as per the show-cause notices are not demanded with interest and penalty be not imposed on them. All the appellants contested the show-cause notices on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice, did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellants, confirmed the demand of duty with interest and imposed penalties on all the appellants.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the main appellant would submit that the demand of duty confirmed in both the show-cause notices is incorrect. It is his submission that the clandestine removal allegations based on the alleged shortages of raw material on account of stock taking of finished goods, is incorrect as the stock taking which was undertaken by the authorities was inaccurate. It is his submission that the demands raised in respect of the shortage of raw materials are incorrect as has been held by the following decisions:-
(a) CCE v. Pentagon Steel Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (288) ELT 271 (Tri.)
(b) Ratan Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (290) ELT 443 (Tri.)
(c) Raj Ratan Industries Ltd. 2013 (289) ELT 482 (Tri.)
(d) Atco Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2013 (291) ELT 273 (Tri.) 4.1 It is his further submission that the demands raised for the differential duty on the allegation of clandestine removal of the goods during the period 24.03.2005 to 18.6.2008 in one show-cause notice and in another show-cause notice for the period July 2008 to November 2010 is based upon the imaginary electricity consumption @ 1046 units metric tonne. It is his submission that this calculation is considered by the lower authorities based upon the report of one Dr. N.K. Batra, Professor, IIT Kanpur. It is his submission that there is no other evidence brought on record as to clandestine manufacturing and clearing of the said M.S. Ingots but the reliance based on non-existing report of Dr. N.K. Batra. It is his submission that the Tribunal had quashed the demands on this ground as they are imaginary basis and unsustainable in the case of R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (237) ELT 674; against such judgement of this Tribunal, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and it was rejected as reported at 2011 (269) ELT 337. Aggrieved by such an order of the Hon'ble High Court, Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the said SLP was also dismissed as reported at 200 (269) ELT A108.
4.2 It is his further submission that subsequent to such judgement, various Commissioners in various assessees cases allowed the contentions and dropped the proceedings of the show-cause notice. The said dropping of the demands were contested by Revenue before this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Venus Alloys Pvt. Ltd. which was decided on 20.03.2012 and held in favour of the assessee. Same view has been expressed by the order of this Tribunal in the case of Pragati Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (28 253 (Tri.). It is his further submission that majority order in the case of S.R.J. Preeti Steels Pvt Ltd. which was decided on 12.04.2012 by this Bench has analysed all the earlier decisions on the issue and following the judgement of the R.A. Casting (supra) rejected the Revenues plea and allowed the appeals of the assessee. It is his submission that the issue is no more res integra.
4.3 It is his further submission that there was an addendum to the show-cause notice stating therein that an investigation was carried out in the factory premises of Shree Sidhbali Ispat Ltd., it was noticed that the appellant herein was receiving sponge iron clandestinely cleared from their factory and hence there is a receipt of un-accounted raw material. He would submit that when the authorities questioned the appellants Director and others, they categorically stated that they have not received any raw materials, specifically sponge iron, from M/s.Shree Sidhbali Ispat Ltd. without any documents. It is his further submission that the statement of Shri Chatar Singh, who is a Director, was recorded in English though being objected by him as he does not know English, as he had passed 6th class only hence the statement having been retracted cannot be relied upon. It is his further submission that without prejudice to the submissions, the adjudicating authority has not followed the judicial discipline, by discarding the binding decisions of the Courts and the Tribunal ruling that the allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained merely on assumption and presumption basis and should be supported by positive evidence. It is his submission that the reliance placed on the 3rd party can be considered by the adjudicating authority subject to they have been presented to cross-examination. He would submit that he relies upon the judgement in the case of CCE v. Brims Products 2011 (271) ELT 184 Pat. HC, Union of India v. MSS Foods Ltd. 2011 (264) ELT 165 M.P and CCE v. Vishwa Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (287) ELT 243 (Guj.) for the proposition that clandestine removal has to be brought on record by the positive and conclusive evidence that there was an additional production (which is unaccounted) of clandestine removal of excisable goods. It is his further submission that the judgement of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) specifically records that the department must have positive evidence that the manufacturer has clandestinely procured the raw material required to manufacture the final product, a fact which is absent in the case in hand. It is his further submission that there being absence of an independent and unimpeachable evidence thereof, allegations of clandestine removal, the impugned orders confirming the demands and imposing penalties are not sustainable. It is his further submission that an addendum issued by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the main appellant had received clandestinely sponge iron from M/s Sidhbali Ispat Ltd., the allegations are baseless and have not been proved. Further the persons who had stated that they had supplied the sponge iron in the clandestine manner were not produced for cross-examination hence the Revenue cannot place reliance on the statements. As regards unexplained income of Rs.91,24,870/- they were received for hiring of various trucks by appellant and shown as indirect income in the balance sheet due to lack of knowledge of Shri Chatar Singh. It is his submission that the allegation which has been upheld by the adjudicating authority that this amount is relatable to the clandestine sales of the goods is incorrect as the details were not verified by the Revenue and Revenue cannot draw adverse inference against appellant herein even if it is improperly explained as has been held by the judgement in the case of A.R. Castings (supra). It is his submission that the appellant also relies upon the unreported judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Charu Steels Ltd. & Others vs. CCE by final Order No.530910-53915/2014-EX(BR), Savitri Concast Ltd. & Anr. V.CCE vide Final Order No. A/51402-51403/2015-EX(DB) dt 23.04.2015 and R M Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. CCE vide final order No. A/50905-50910/2015-EX(DB) dt. 19.3.2015 for the proposition that in these three judgements, orders issued was identical as is in these cases.
4.4 On limitation it is his submission that the show-cause notice dated 11.09.2009 is for the period 24.03.2005 to 18.06.2008 is clearly time barred as the main appellant was regularly filing the returns with the lower authorities during the relevant period.
5. Learned Commissioner (A.R.) while supporting the impugned orders submits that the facts of the case in hand are totally different than the facts in the case of R.A. Casting (supra). After making his submission he took us through the entire case records and submits that Shri Chatar Singh in his statement dated 04.09.2008, admitted that there was receipt of non-accounted raw material and removal of unaccounted manufactured goods without payment of duty. This statement was followed by various statements dated 26.02.2009, 08.09.2009 and 06.04.2009 and these statements were not retracted and only in reply to show-cause notice dated 23.04.2010 it is stated that the statements were incorrect as they were recorded in English and Shri Chatar Singh does not understand English hence it stands retracted. It is his further submission that the main appellant did not maintain any record of receipt of raw material or transportation of finished goods; no separate record in Form IV was maintained for procurement of bazaar scrap and Cenvated raw material. It is his submission that leave alone the statutory records, the main appellant not even maintained any records of bazaar scrap and there was no record of maintenance of heat wise manufacture of finished goods. There are no records such as Bilty, consignment note, delivery challan, weighment slip or payment particulars for procurement of raw material or despatch of finished goods. It is his further submission that the statements of Shri Shardulchand Patyela, Manager and Authorised Signatory, Shri Bhagwandas Karmali & Shri Sikandar Yadav, Melters of the main appellants factory, there was no satisfactory explanation for an abnormally high shortfall in production of 16% vis-a-vis raw material consumption, which also indicates that the stated finished goods were clandestinely removed. He would draw our attention to the submissions and submit that the consumption of Ferromanganese/Ferro Alloys is also not explained why there was an excess consumption of such material every day. He would also submit that the quantum of production of Runners and Rises is fixed at 4% of the production of ingots is also incorrect; that cannot be fixed as technological imperative. Production of runners and rises being waste that arises cannot be so meticulously recorded. It is his submission that Shri Sidhbali Ispat Ltd. has in their investigation clearly stated that they were supplying sponge iron, one of the raw material of the main appellant without recording in any form and without payment of duty. It is his submission that the main appellant has not brought forth any evidence to disclaim to such statement of M/s. Shree Sidhbali Ispat Ltd. It is his submission that as regards the indirect income of Rs.91,24,680/- which shown on account of Hiring Charges no explanation was forthcoming and no reply to show-cause notice which was indicated that the amount is an income from the hiring of trucks owned in an individual capacity by each of their Directors, it stands to reason that the individual income of Directors of a Private Ltd. Company cannot be shown as income of the Company and no evidence is produced that the main appellant is in the business of hiring of trucks nor there is any evidence which indicates that the trucks were registered in the name of the main appellant. It is his further submission that during the visit of the factory premises of the main appellant there was shortage of raw material and unaccounted finished goods which also indicates that the main appellant habitually clandestinely manufactures goods and clears the same without payment of duty. He would submit that the furnace installed by the appellant were manufactured by M/s.Electrotherm (India) Ltd. and as per the performance certificate of the manufacturer shows wide variations in consumption of electricity vis a vis manufacture of finished goods. The appellant is unable to explain this fluctuation in-spite of the furnace being brand new when production commenced. He would submit that the capacity to manufacture ingots, electricity consumption during the period was available and the calculation thereof indicates that there was clandestine removal of the finished goods. It is his submission that the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC) (Para 43) and Om Prakash Bhatia 2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC) (Para 19) held that a prudent business person will not sell or buy at a loss and especially over a period of time reasoning which will apply in the case in hand. It is his submission that the show-cause notices dated 11.09.2009 and 11.02.2011 and orders-in-original dated 18.05.2010 and 19.03.2012 have laid out the case and needs to be sustain as held in the following cases:-
--./ \
1. Kanungo & Co 1983 (13) EL T 1486 (SC)
2. C.C Vs D. Bhoormull1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC)
3. Triveni Rubber and Plastics Vs CCE 1994 (73) EL T 7 (SC)
4. Nagpal Steel Ltd. Vs CCE 2000 (125) ELT 1147 (T)
5. Hans Casting Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE 1998 (102) EL T 139 (T)
6. Bajrang Petro Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs CCE 2015 (317) EL T 243 (All)
7. Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE 2005 (184) ELT 263 (T)
8. Melton India Vs Commercial Trade Tax 2007 TIOL 14-SC-CT
9. Rajmoti Industries Vs JCIT 2014 TIOL 203 HC AHM-IT
10. Ratlam Wires Pvt Ltd. Vs CESTAT 2004 (174) E.L.T. 154 (M.P.)
11. Maganlal G Shah Vs UOI 1992 (59) E.L.T. 235 (Guj.)/1997 (93) E.L.T. A 185 (S.C)
12. Apurva Aluminium Corporation Vs 2010 (261) ELT 515 (T) / 2014 (302) ELT 495 (Guj)
13. Lucky Dyeing Mills Vs CCE 2008 (222) EL T 543 (T)
14. Ahmednagar Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE 2014 (300) E. L.T. 119 (T)
15. CCE Vs APS Associates Pvt Ltd. 2015 (317) ELT 740 (T)
16. Sarlia Steel Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE FO no. A/2019-2023/15/EB dt. 8.7.2015 in Appeal no. E/1126/2010-Mum.
6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records.
7. The issue involved in this case is whether the demand of an amount of Rs.3.86 crores and Rs.1.54 crores confirmed against the appellant along with interest and equivalent penalties on all the four appellants is sustainable or otherwise in the facts and circumstances of this case. In both the impugned orders the adjudicating authority have mainly relied upon the production figures calculated on the basis of consumption of electricity @ 1046 units per metric tonne as per the report of Dr. N.K. Batra, IIT Kanpur. The adjudicating authority in impugned order dated 18.05.2010 has also recorded some findings as to the shortage of finished goods and raw material and receipt of unaccounted income of Rs.91,24,680/- non accountal of actual production of Runners and Risers. Both the adjudicating authorities have relied upon heavily and only on the report purportedly given by Dr. N.K. Batra who held that for manufacturing of one metric tonne of M.S.Ingots, required electricity is 1046 units and have justified the same stating that the consumption of electricity by the main appellant indicated that they have not recorded the manufacturing and clearance of the finished goods. We do not agree with the contentions of the learned D.R. and the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority on this point for more than one reason.
7.1 Firstly, we find that the entire case records, there is no evidence which indicated that appellant had procured raw materials which were unaccounted. There is an addendum issued to the show-cause notice which indicates that appellant had procured additional raw material from M/s. Sidhbali which was unaccounted but we find that the said allegation is not supporting the case when various personnel of the main appellant were confronted with such statement of M/s. Sidhbali, stated that they have not received the goods from M/s. Sidhbali. Further, we find that sponge iron is not the only input required for the manufacture of M.S .Ingots, Revenue has not brought on records to show that various other inputs which are required for manufacturing of M.S. Ingots were also procured clandestinely and were unaccounted. The main raw material for manufacturing of M.S. Ingots is electricity which is used in induction of furnace. Revenues case is that, based upon the report of Dr. N.K. Batra, appellant had consumed more electricity but recorded less production. The allegation of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on a report which was non-existent as was stated by IIT, Kanpur during a query raised in RTI to them is recorded in many orders of this Tribunal in an identical set of issues. Heavy reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on the said report to presumably to work out the manufacturing of M.S. Ingots and clandestine removal therein seems to be incorrect as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of R.A. Casting (supra). In the said judgement, this Tribunal had specifically recorded as under:-
23.?The Tribunal has consistently taken the view that wherever electricity consumption alone is adopted as the basis to raise demands, the order of the lower authorities have been held to be unsustainable in law and set aside and the Revenue had been directed to carry out experiments in different factories on different dates to arrive at the average to be adopted as a norm, which can be followed thereafter and the Revenue in the present case not having conducted any experiment whatsoever cannot be permitted to justify the demands raised. It will be appropriate on the part of the Revenue to conduct experiments in the factory of the appellants and others and that too on different dates to adopt the test results as the basis to arrive at a norm, which can be adopted for future. The impugned demand based merely on assumptions and presumptions cannot, therefore, be sustained nor could be justified both on facts and in law. 7.2 It is to be noted that Revenue aggrieved by such an order took up the matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the Lordships dismissed the appeals by a speaking order, which is upheld by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP filed by Revenue. This judgement has been relied upon by this Tribunal in various cases and also in the case of S.R.J Preeti Steels Pvt. Ltd. which is a majority order wherein {one of us, M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)} was a 3rd Member. The final order No. A-544-569/14/EB/C-II records that the reliance placed on the non-existent report of Prof. N.K. Batra, IIT Kanpur cannot be considered gospel truth and demands cannot be raised holding that there was clandestine manufacture and removal of goods i.e. M.S. Ingots. The said decision has gone into all the aspects which have been agitated before this Bench and held that there cannot be any demand on the assessee based only on the presumption of manufacturing and excess consumption of electricity. It is also seen that the judgement relied on the ratio laid down by R.A. Casting (supra) we find that the Tribunal has recently in 2015 in final order A/51402 - 51403/2015-EX(DB) dated 23.04.2015 in the case of Savitri Con-Cast Ltd. and Ors. has held in favour of the assessee relying upon the very same judgement of R.A. Casting (supra) in an identical issue; as also in the case of M/s. Charu Steels Ltd. and Ors. in final order No.53910-53915/2014-Ex(Br) dated 14.10.2014. On the face of such decided cases on the very same issue, we find that all the arguments put forth by the learned Commissioner (A.R.) are of no consequence and does not carry the case of Revenue any further.
7.3 Secondly, the allegations of clandestine removal of manufactured goods is very serious allegation and needs to be substantiated by Revenue authorities with tenable evidence to show that there was large scale manufacturing of commodities. In the case of Viswa Traders Pvt. Ltd. supra, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held as under:-
7.?The Tribunal in Paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 16 has recorded clear finding that when the premises of the respondent were visited, the stock of raw-material and finished goods were tallying with the recorded goods. Further, nothing on record was found by the authority, which showed that unrecorded raw-materials were purchased or consumed by the respondent or that the respondent had clandestinely manufactured or removed the goods. It is necessary to extract Paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 16 of order of the Tribunal, which reads as under :-
12.?Be that as it may be, it is to be noted that there is no dispute that to manufacture of said final product Frit requires the use of Quartz, Feldspar, Zinc, Borax Power, Calcium and Dolomite as inputs/raw material. On the date of visit of the officers to the factory premises of the appellant, it is undisputed that the stock of raw materials as well as finished goods was tallying with recorded balances. This conclusion can be reached from perusal of records, as there is nothing on record to indicate otherwise.
13.?On careful perusal of the entire records of the case, we find that there is nothing on record as to unrecorded purchases or consumption of various other raw material in the manufacture of Frit, there is also nothing on record to indicate that the appellant had purchased the Quartz, Feldspar, Zinc, Borax Powder, Calcium and Dolomite and without accounting them used for the manufacture of Frit for clandestine removal. There is also nothing on record nor there is any statement of the suppliers of other raw materials, which would indicate that the appellant had received unaccounted raw material from the suppliers of these raw materials. There is a solitary evidence in the form of statement of supplier of one of the raw material i.e. Borax Powder, who indicated that the appellant had procured Borax Powder and not accounted the same in his record; and the said entries and information were deduced from the documents of the premises of Shri Anil Jadav and whose evidence has been discarded for having not been produced for cross examination; in the absence of any other tangible evidence to show that the appellant had been procuring the other major raw materials required for manufacture of Frit without recording in books of accounts, we are unable to accept the contentions of the ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and the findings of the adjudicating authority, that there was clandestine manufacture and clearance of the finished goods. The investigation has not proceeded further to bring on record unaccounted purchases of all the raw materials required for manufacturing of Frit.
16.?In the absence of any tangible evidence which would indicate that there was clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods from the factory premises of M/s. VTPL, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the impugned order which confirms the demand on the appellant M/s. VTPL and imposes penalty on them is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and we do so. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Flevel International in Central Excise Appeal No.6/2013, in their judgement dated 17.09.2015 has upheld the law concerning with clandestine removal as decided by this Tribunal in the case of Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II 2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri. Ahmd.) which is in Para 55 of the unreported judgement and we reproduce the same:-
(e) Hari Shanker, learned Senior counsel for the Appellant, has also drawn the attention of the Court to a decision of the CESTAT in Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II 2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri.-Ahmd.) where the entire law concerning clandestine removal has been discussed and the legal position has been summarised as under:
"(i) There should be tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance and not merely inferences or unwarranted assumptions;
(ii) Evidence in support thereof should be of:
(a) raw materials, in excess of that contained as per the statutory records;
(b) instances of actual removal of naccounted finished goods (not inferential or assumed) from the factory without payment of duty; .
(c) discovery of such finished goods outside the- factory;
(d) instances of sale of such goods to identified parties;
(e) receipt of sale proceeds, whether by cheque or by cash, of such goods by the manufacturers or persons. authorized by him;
(f) use of electricity far in excess of what is necessary for manufacture of. goods . otherwise manufactured and validly cleared on payment of duty;
(g) statements of buyers with some details of illicit manufacture and clearance;
(h) proof of actual transportation of goods, cleared without payment of duty;
(i) links between the documents recovered during the search and activities being carried on in the factory of production; etc."
On applying the ratio of the judgements of High Courts, we find, in the case in hand there is no tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearances and the confirmation for the demand of duty is merely on assumption and presumptions and is unsustainable.
7.4 As regards the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority in respect of shortage of goods, learned Counsel fairly submits that they are not contesting the issue but submits that penalty imposed be set aside.
7.5 Since the appellants are not seriously contesting the confirmation of demand raised in respect of shortage of goods during the visit of Investigating authorities, we uphold the demands along with interest and also hold that the appellants are liable to be penalised and we uphold the impugned order to that extent.
7.6 In respect of unexplained indirect income shown by the main appellant in the balance sheet for an amount of Rs.91,34,870/- we find that the said income may be indicated in the balance sheet and the explanation given by the Directors of the appellant being short of any reasoning, given by itself cannot be considered as an amount which is received by clandestine sales of the finished goods, as in the absence of any tangible evidence to indicate that there was clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods, the case of the Revenue cannot be go any further. In our considered view the explanation given by the appellant of indirect income as recorded may be not satisfactory, but in the absence of any evidence that this income was arising out of clandestine manufacturing and clearance of the goods, it cannot be held that this is also an evidence in favour of the Revenue for allegation of clandestine removal.
7.7 As we have disposed of these appeals only on merits of the case and the issue being decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad we are not recording any findings or observation on various submissions made by both sides.
7.8 In view of the foregoing, we hold that except for the confirmation of demand on the shortages as noticed by the adjudicating authority we set aside the impugned order confirming the demands raised on the appellant as regards clandestine removal of finished goods. As we have set aside the demands raised, we find that there is no reason to visit the appellants with any penalty.
8. Impugned orders are set aside except for the demands confirmed on the main appellant in respect of shortage of goods noticed during the visit of the authorities.
(Pronounced in Court on 31.12.15) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
1 22Appeal No. E/1728, 1729/10, 86420, 86421/13