Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Malerkotla Steel & Alloys Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 29 June, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160 017 COURT NO. I Appeal No. E/599/2012 Date of Hearing/ Decision : 29.06.2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. OIA- 221-225/CE/APPL/CHD-II/2011 dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & ST., Chandigarh] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) M/s Malerkotla Steel & Alloys Pvt. Limited : Appellant vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh- II : Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri H. Singh , A.R. for the Respondent(s) CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 61203 / 2017 Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty has been demanded along with interest and penalty has also been imposed on the charge of clandestine clearance of the goods.
2. The facts of the case are that, investigation was conducted at the end of the M/s. V.K. Concast Private Limited, wherein a private computer of Shri Atul Gupta, Director was seized and the records were retrieved from the computer. From these records, it was found that appellant is one of the suppliers of goods to them without accounting the same in their books of accounts. Thereafter, investigation was conducted at the end of the appellant wherein the appellant has stated that in some cases they have supplied the goods and to that effect they have issued invoices and admitted some transactions with them. For rest of the transactions, they have denied that they have not sold any goods to M/s. V.K. Concast Private Limited, as indicated in the records retrieved from the computer of Shri Atul Gupta. But it was alleged that the appellant has clandestinely cleared the goods which were found entered in the records of seized from Shri Atul Gupta. On the basis of this, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand duty on the goods cleared clandestinely along with interest and to impose penalty. The matter was adjudicated and duty along with interest was confirmed and penalty was imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not sold any goods to M/s. V.K. Concast Private Limited without the cover of duty paying invoices and the demand is sought to be confirmed against the appellant on the basis of some private record recovered from Shri Atul Gupta, Director of M/s. V.K. Concast Private Limited. It is pointed out that no infirmity is found in the accounts maintained by the appellant and during the course of investigation, the appellant has categorically stated that they have not sold any goods without the cover of duty paying invoices. In that circumstances, without any corroborative evidence, merely on the basis of some private record recovered from Shri Atul Gupta, the demand is not sustainable against the appellant.
4. On the other hand, learned. AR for the Revenue submits that as the record retrieved from Shri Atul Gupta shows that the appellant is one of the suppliers. It is his submission that where the appellant is able to show the invoice, no duty is demanded but where there no invoice is found, it is clear that appellant has supplied the goods to M/s. V.K. Concast Private Limited clandestinely and the duty is rightly confirmed against the appellant.
5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. I find that the charge of clandestine removal has been alleged against the appellant on the basis of record retrieved from the computer seized from Shri Atul Gupta, Director of M/s. V.K. Concast Private Limited. There is no other evidence available on record to show that the appellant was engaged in the activity of clandestine removal of the goods. No corroboration of evidence has been made by the Revenue to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal. Moreover, no statement of transporter is recorded and no mode of payment is determined by the Revenue while investigating the case. All the more, during the course of investigation, nothing adverse was found against the appellant and the appellant has made a categorical statement that they have not supplied any goods without cover of invoice. In that circumstances, without any positive evidence of clandestine removal of goods, the charge of clandestine removal against the appellant is not sustainable. In that circumstances, the impugned order has no merit and the same is set-aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) KL 4 Appeal No. C/630/2012