Judgment:
Per Jyoti Balasundaram
In this case, the adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand of Rs.14,24,028/- on clandestine removal of 888.439 MTs of CTD/ribbed bars manufactured by the assessee and cleared without payment of duty and also imposed penalty of Rs.7,50,000/- upon them. The order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. We have heard both sides . We find that the case of the department is that the assessee received raw materials i.e. ingots from M/s.Vinayaka Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Gummudipoondi (hereinafter referred to as VAPL) and did not return them as rejects to the suppliers but utilized the same for illicit manufacture of CTD bars. The evidence relied upon by the department consists of kutcha production slips, private production records and statements of the transporter and cashier. 95% of the ingots was supplied by VAPL. The cashier cum clerk of the assessee's company had disposed that generally the ingots are of uniform weight of 72 kgs. and are generally cut into two pieces for being fed into the furnace to produce CTD bars. Burning loss/production loss is 3% and it is on the above basis that the quantification of goods manufactured and cleared without payment of duty has been arrived at. Although the annexures to the show-cause notice showing suppressed production only indicate the weight of 86 MTs of ingots, the weight of entire quantity of bars manufactured is not shown by the assessee. The assessee also pays production incentives to its mill workers for excess production by feeding more than 70 cut pieces of ingots into the furnace per hour and the incentive payments are duly accounted for by preparing vouchers containing date and details of production for which the incentive is paid. The vouchers also tally with the production books. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the entire gamut of evidence relied upon by the Revenue to support its case. The interest of justice require that the lower appellate authority considers the evidence on record in detail before coming to a conclusion as to whether the department has made out its case or not. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall pass fresh detailed order after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence.
3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.