Central Excise Appeal No.841 of 2007-DB, (Arising out of the Order-in-Original No.16 & 17/COMMR/2007 dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Rajkot). Case: C.C.E. & S.Tax, Rajkot Vs Shivam Casting. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberCentral Excise Appeal No.841 of 2007-DB, (Arising out of the Order-in-Original No.16 & 17/COMMR/2007 dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Rajkot)
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Alok Srivastava, A.R. and For Respondents: Shri P.V. Sheth, Advocate
JudgesDr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical)
IssueCustoms Law
Judgement DateMay 16, 2017
CourtCEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

Dr. D.M. Misra, (West Zonal Bench Ahmedabad)

  1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Original No.16 & 17/COMMR/2007 dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Rajkot.

  2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent's factory was visited by the Central Excise Authorities on 10.8.2004. Certain incriminating documents/evidences have been retrieved from the factory and other premises; and later statements of various persons were recorded. On completion of the investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent and other co-noticees alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods involving a total Central Excise duty of Rs.82,79,294/-. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with equal amount of penalty on the Respondent and personal penalty on other co-noticees.

  3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue assailing the impugned order has submitted that the adjudicating authority had unilaterally accepted the Chartered Engineer's Certificate dated 8.4.2006 submitted by the Respondent during the course of adjudication proceeding and erred in observing that there could not be production of the alleged quantity of goods in the factory premises of the Respondent out of the machineries installed in the factory premises, as these machines did not have the capacity to manufacture, the quantity of goods alleged to have been manufactured and cleared clandestinely. It is his contention that such plea had neither been taken during investigation nor in any of the statements furnished by the employees of the respondent during the course of investigation, hence, could not be verified. Ld. A.R. further submits that even though the other evidences had been analyzed in arriving the conclusion but such finding goes to the very root of the matter and the said observation has ultimately resulted into dropping the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue in support took us through the findings of the ld. Commissioner recorded at Para 3.6.1 to 3.6.2 of the impugned order. It is his contention that the Chartered Engineer's Certificate furnished much after the issuance of the show cause notice should not have been accepted by the adjudicating authority with out due verification of the same about its correctness. He, therefore, submits that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for undertaking a proper inquiry about the veracity/correction...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT