Page 243 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] SYNERGY STEELS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALWAR 129

2020 (372) E.L.T. 129 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
SYNERGY STEELS LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALWAR
Final Order Nos. 50500-50505/2019, dated 10-4-2019 in Appeal Nos. E/51605,
51596, 51601, 51608, 51648 & 51642/2016-DB
1
Demand - Clandestine removal and undervaluation - Third Party Evi-
dence - Said demand has been confirmed only on basis of certain loose
slips/pages resumed from third party i.e. consignment agent - No reliance can
be placed on these loose sheets as name of appellant is not mentioned on them
- Further, statement of said consignment agent also not reliable evidence in
absence of his cross-examination in terms of Section 9D of Central Excise Act,
1944 - No independent investigations conducted from buyers of finished
goods whose name allegedly appeared in these loose sheets - In absence of
corroborative evidence, no reliance can be placed on third party evidence - Im-
pugned order not sustainable - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras
13, 14]
Cenvat credit - Fraudulent availment - Evidence - In absence of any ev-
idence of procuring Bazar Scrap as a replacement of raw material, allegation of
only receipt of invoice and not raw material not established - No investiga-
tions conducted either from suppliers of inputs/raw material mentioned in
invoices or from transporters to establish charge of non-receipt of goods -
Credit not deniable - Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 15]
Demand - Sale of SS Flats - Undervaluation - Evidence - No sufficient
corroborative evidence adduced to establish charge that appellant had been
undervaluing sale price of SS Flats to a particular buyer and taking this
amount in cash - There was no recovery of any cash during searches - Merely
some vague entries in records of buyers are not sufficient evidence, some of
which were found by adjudicating authority pertaining to freight - No ques-
tioning done on these records during investigations - Accordingly, dropping of
demand on this count by adjudicating authority cannot be faulted - Section
11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 16]
Assessee’s appeals allowed/Revenue’s appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Beco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2000 (121) E.L.T. 650 (Tribunal) — Referred ................... [Para 7]
Commissioner v. Anand Founders & Engineers — 2016 (331) E.L.T. 340 (P & H) — Referred ...... [Para 7]
Commissioner v. IOC Ltd. — 2014 (300) E.L.T. 153 (Tribunal) — Referred ....................................... [Para 7]
Commissioner v. Juhi Alloys Ltd. — 2014 (302) E.L.T. 487 (All.) — Relied on .......................... [Paras 7, 15]
Commissioner v. Kuber Tobacco India Ltd. — 2016 (338) E.L.T. 113 (Tribunal) — Relied on ..... [Para 13]
G-Tech Industries v. Union of India — 2016 (339) E.L.T. 209 (P & H) — Relied on ....................... [Para 13]
________________________________________________________________________
1 Appeal against this order was admitted for consideration by Supreme Court in 2020 (372)
E.L.T. A26 (S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  291