Case Law Details
Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The appellant M/s Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in manufacture of Sponge Iron, MS Ingots and Silico Manganese. Their premises were got searched on 7 November 2015 and 8 November 2015 by the team of Preventive Officers of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax acting upon the intelligence gathered about evasion of central excise duty by the appellant by way of procurement of unaccounted raw materials, clandestine manufacture of excisable goods without accounting the same in their daily stock account and removing the same without payment of central excise duty. The documents were recovered during the search and the investigating team also got stock of finished goods and raw material during the physical verification. While comparing the said physical verification report and the documents recovered with the opening stock finished goods and the raw material declared by the noticee the team noticed that 56.300 MT of MS Ingots and 221.693 MT of Iron Ore is excess/unaccounted stock in the factory premises. Resultantly a show cause notice No. 3976 dated 3 May 2016 was served upon the appellants proposing the seized MS Ingots and the Iron Ore to be confiscated alongwith the proposal of imposition of penalty. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide order-in-original No. 20/ADJ/AC/RGH/C.Ex/2018-19 dated 15 January 2019. The appeal thereof has been dismissed vide order-in-appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-40-19-20 dated 24 June 2019. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Shri Vinay K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Yashveer Singh, learned Authorized Representative for the Department.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the shortage is noticed in the single day production procedure of the appellant when it was yet to be entered in the records. There is no such allegation that the records were not maintained by the appellant for a quite a long period. It is mentioned that there is no other evidence to corroborate the impugned allegations of clandestine removal since the excess finished goods were not for more than one day‟s production. The non-entry of that day‟s production in record cannot result in imposition of penalty. It is submitted that the original Adjudicating Authority has specifically acknowledged that present is not the case where the raw material should be ordered confiscation. But despite forming the said opinion, the proposal of show cause notice has been confirmed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in not recognizing that the raw material was of one day production only and there was no removal of any excisable goods from the appellant‟s premises. There is no evidence to prove either of the two allegations. He again has erred by relying upon Rule 25 (1) (b) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appeal has been dismissed under the wrong interpretation of the said provision. The order is accordingly prayed to be set aside. While relying upon the various case laws, as mentioned in the grounds of appeal,
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
