Judgment
Per M. Veeraiyan:
This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 372/CE/Appeal/2007 dated 23.11.2007 which upheld the order of the original authority dated 27.11.2006 which dropped the proceedings initiated for recovery of duty of Rs.2,99,419/-.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers visited the premises of the respondents on 24.9.03 and found that during the period from 1.4.03 to 23.9.03, copper ingots and copper bars totally weighing 453536.7 kgs. were received and the quantity sent for job work was 378243.100 kgs. and a quantity of 54500.6 kgs. were removed as such on payment of duty. The officers held that there was a difference of 20793 kgs. of copper ingots/copper bars as on 24.9.03. Shri Sham Gupta, partner of the respondents in his statement dated 13.9.04 explained the reason for the shortage as due to their cutting the ends of copper ingots/bars before sending to job workers. He also clarified that the end pieces of copper ingots/bars which were cut were sold as scrap on payment of duty. Show cause notice alleged clandestine removal of the short found goods. The original authority dropped the proceedings. The Department chose to file appeal against the order of the original authority which was also rejected.
4. The learned Jt.CDR reiterates the grounds in the order in review.
5. The learned Advocate for the respondents strongly supports the order of the authorities below.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. A serious charge of suppression and clandestine removal has been made in the show cause notice. No evidence in this regard has been relied upon. The reasoning given by the partner of the respondents firm for the shortage of copper ingots and copper bars has not been further investigated and has not been denied. Under these circumstances, the order of the original authority and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) both of which are in favour of the assessee do not call for interference.
7. Lengthy appeal memoranda has been filed wherein the reliefs claimed are as follows:
“i) Whether order in appeal are legal and proper
ii) Whether order in original and order in appeal merit to be set aside.
iii) To pass such order as the CESTAT, New Delhi may deem fit keeping in view the specific provisions of the statute in this regard.”
The review of the Commissioner (Appeals) s order and filing of appeal before CESTAT have been made mechanically without application of mind. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper and does not call for any interference.
8. The appeal by the Department which is against the concurrent findings of the lower authorities which are in favour of the assessee, is rejected.