Page 236 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

122 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

cash payment to assessee through angadias/dealers but later on stated that the
same handed over to their employee - Further, statement of co-accused manu-
facturers who were also not presented for cross-examination and also being
inconclusive not admissible in evidence - Prices to different buyers based up-
on quality of goods also cannot be basis to allege undervaluation - Sections 4
and 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 9]
Demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Merely excess consumption
of natural gas for manufacture of Ceramic Glaze Fritz cannot be a ground to
allege excess manufacture and clearance of goods when there is no evidence of
excess receipt, processing or consumption of other raw materials - Section 11A
of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 10]
Demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Parallel invoices having dif-
ferent format from the invoice format of the assessee not reliable in absence of
any corroborative evidence such as clearance and transportation of goods
though buyer accepted receipt of goods - Section 11A of Central Excise Act,
1944. [paras 11]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Amar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (235) E.L.T. 487 (Tribunal) — Referred ................. [Para 4]
Belgium Glass & Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (325) E.L.T. A51 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ................................................................................................................................ [Paras 7, 12]
Commissioner v. Belgium Glass and Ceramics (P) Ltd. — 2017 (356) E.L.T. A46 (Guj.)
— Relied on ................................................................................................................................ [Paras 7, 12]
Commissioner v. R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. — 2012 (26) S.T.R. 262 (All.) — Relied on ..................... [Para 10]
Ebenezer Rubbers Ltd. v. Collector — 1986 (26) E.L.T. 997 (Tribunal) — Referred ......................... [Para 6]
Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India — 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 172) (S.C.) — Referred ..................... [Para 4]
R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (237) E.L.T. 674 (Tribunal) — Relied on .......... [Para 10]
Southern Ispat Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (248) E.L.T. 270 (Tribunal) — Referred ................... [Para 4]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Deven Parikh, Sr. Advocate with Nirav Shah,
Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri A. Mishra, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Ramesh Nair, Member (J)]. - The present appeal has been
filed by appellant M/s. Shri Krishna Industries against OIO No. 21/VDR-II/L-
P.ADJ/Shrikrishna/D.BRH/COMMT/2010, dated 31-12-2010 passed by Com-
missioner, Central Excise, Vadodara-II wherein a central excise duty demand of
Rs. 6,87,50,735/- is confirmed against them along with equivalent amount of
penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The brief facts of the case are
that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ceramic Glaze Fritz falling
under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading No. 3207.10/90. On the basis of investi-
gation conducted by the DGCEI against appellant and other Fritz Manufacturing
factories show cause notices were issued to all such manufacturers alleging simi-
lar modus operandi for evasion of duty. The appellant were issued show cause no-
tice dated 5-4-2010 proposing the duty demands as under :-
(i) A demand of Rs. 3,28,68,656/- was proposed on the ground that
they have undervalued goods.
(ii) A demand of Rs. 2,95,33,205/- was proposed on the basis of con-
sumption of gas alleging that they have suppressed production as
there was excess consumption of gas.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  284