Page 101 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] N.R. SPONGE PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR 323

4. The matter was heard elaborately in respect of all the points raised
by the Appellant/Assessee.
5. The Appellant is a private limited company having registration un-
der the relevant statute (Central Excise Act, 1944/Rules) and is engaged in manu-
facture of “sponge iron”. In the course of business, the authorities under the Re-
spondents/Department conducted an inspection in the premises of the Appel-
lant-Company on 4-10-2006, when it was revealed that the stock register was
maintained only up to 30-9-2006. Various incriminating materials were stated as
retrieved and the physical verification of the stock revealed shortage of 2.580 MT
of sponge iron as well, which led to recovery/seizure of records/documents for
further scrutiny. The authorities under the Respondent-Revenue, besides collect-
ing such materials from the premises of the Company, took the statements of the
Shift Supervisors, the Director of the Company, the Transporters and also the
Brokers/Commission Agents, besides collecting materials from different sources
as above.
6. On the basis of the materials collected on different dates, a show
cause notice was issued to the Appellant-Assessee on 6-9-2007 which was replied
by the Assessee on 26-11-2007. After completing the necessary steps and proce-
dural formalities, the matter was finalised by the Adjudicating Officer as per the
order dated 31-1-2008, whereby a specific finding was rendered to the effect that
there was a clandestine removal of 1574.725 MT of sponge iron and 81.010 MT of
Dolochar. Based on the value of the goods, the Appellant/Assessee was slapped
with a duty of Rs. 25,67,367/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC
of the Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the Act, 1944. The Adjudicat-
ing Officer arrived at a clear finding that the course of action and the modus
operandi was with the knowledge of the Director of the Company and in the said
circumstances, a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was mulcted upon the Director. The
above order was sought to be challenged by the Assessee-Company by filing
statutory appeal before the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner (Appeals)
who declined interference, in turn dismissing the appeal as per the order dated
28-4-2008. Met with the situation, a further appeal was preferred by the Appel-
lant/Assessee before the Tribunal, who made a threadbare analysis of the facts
and figures, the relevant provisions of law and the precedents and arrived at a
finding that there was no scope for any interference. Dismissal of the appeal by
the Tribunal made the Assessee to approach this Court by filing the appeal, as
aforesaid.
7. As mentioned already, the crux of the contention raised in this ap-
peal is more with reference to the facts and the evidence available, though the
Appellant, by virtue of the better wisdom acquired years after filing of the ap-
peal, has come up with some modified questions of law, suggesting as involving
substantial questions of law, as extracted above. The primary contention put
forth by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that there is no evidence to sus-
tain the findings rendered by the Tribunal, the Appellate Authority or the Adju-
dicating Officer and hence, it is perverse and to be set aside. The next point
mooted is that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the liability merely on the basis
of the statement given by the Director of the Assessee-Company before the inves-
tigating agency and since no statement of the Director was recorded by the Tri-
bunal directly, it would not satisfy the requirement of Section 9D of the Act,
1944. The final contention is that, time and again, it has been held and reiterated
by various Courts that there cannot be any finding on liability, merely on the ba-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  101