M/S. Kannappan Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.53/2006, dated11.08.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]

M/s. KANNAPPAN IRON & STEEL CO. PVT. LTD. APPELLANT

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Appellant Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnose, Adv.

For the Respondent Shri M. Rammohan Rao, AC (AR)

CORAM:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Date of hearing/decision 07-07-2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 40960 / 2015

Appellant vehemently opposes adjudication on the ground that there was no suppression of M.S. Ingots manufactured during the period 2003-04. The material used against the appellant is without any credence and were not cogent. The evidences recorded also did not corroborate the case of Revenue. There was no accounted manufacture of M.S. Ingots for clandestine removal. The appellant having paid the duty to reduce ligation, there should neither be penalty nor even the redemption fine.

2.1 Revenue on the other hand submits that it has not only evidence relating to the finding that the goods cleared were unaccounted but there are other several corroborative evidence showing such clearance occasioning movement of goods from origin to destination proving benefit to the beneficiary of the fraud. Revenue made out a case against the assessee. It has also proved its case in entirety with full proof and preponderance of probability. Therefore, there should be no leniency to appellant for waiver of redemption fine and penalty. 2.2. So far as the unaccounted scrap of 8.5 MTs is concerned, that was ingots received without any invoices and such goods were used in manufacture of M.S. Ingots. That was also corroborated by the evidence of General Manager.

3. Heard both sides and perused the record.

4.1 Discovery of certain papers and documents during investigation revealed that the transporters have occasioned movement of goods without invoice proving the origin and destination thereof. That originated from factory of the appellant and reached to the intended party. That remained unrebutted. The abbreviations marked proved, the destination of the goods( ref: para 11 of the Adjudication order). Appellant failed to prove its bonafide demonstrating the transactions as accounted. 4.2 Para 22, 23 & 24 of adjudication orders provides basis of movement of the goods by the transporter. Similarly, paras 28 and 31 demonstrates that aspect. The destination where the goods were delivered comes out from paras 33 and 34. That remained uncontroverted. Paragraph 34 sufficiently proves the case of Revenue as to the removal of the goods without payment of duty. In such a factual circumstance, in absence of any evidence to show that the movement of goods were accounted, there is no scope to differ with the adjudication finding. 4.3 Procurement of M.S. scrap was also unaccounted. Use of the unaccounted scrap in manufacture of the finished goods was not rebutted. Therefore, adjudication is confirmed. Appeal is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

ksr 24-07-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 07.07.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing 22.07.2015

Fair Order Typing 24.07.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch 08.08.2015

5 E/00922/2006