IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.E.A. No.170 of 2010 (O&M) & connected appeal being CEA No.171 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2010 M/s Baba Balak Nath Steel (P) Ltd. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of CEA Nos.170 and 171 of 2010, as both appeals involve commons questions. 2. CEA No.170 of 2010 has been filed by the assessee under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 3.9.2009 in appeal No.6266/2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant can be said to have admitted the receipt of alloy steel inputs? C.E.A. No.170 of 2010 (ii) Whether the finding of CESTAT which is incorrect on the face of the facts be treated as final finding of fact against the Appellant? (iii) Whether the demand can be confirmed for clandestine removal without verifying the accounts of the Appellant merely on the basis of statement of co-accused? (iv) Whether Natural Justice has been violated by respondent by ignoring the submissions made by the Appellant; wrongly and arbitrarily ignoring the glaring facts of the case? (v) Whether the letter dated 7.7.2010 issued to the Appellant for recovery of dues, would hold validity during pendency of the present appeal? 3. During scrutiny of record of M/s Vimal Alloys Ltd., it was noticed that alloy steel ingots of particular quantity were cleared to M/s Hansco Steels, out of which, part of goods were sold to the appellant who manufactured finished goods and sold the same without payment of duty. On notice being issued, stand of the appellant was that the goods in question being ‘non-alloy steel ingots’, were covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme and no separate duty was payable thereon. After appreciating the rival versions, the adjudicating authority held the goods to be ‘steel ingots’, liable to duty and also levied penalty. It was observed:- “………It remained a fact that the party have received 29.270 MT of Alloy Steel Ingots from M/s Jolly Steel Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh which were actually 2 C.E.A. No.170 of 2010 manufactured by M/s Thapper Ispat Ltd., Ludhiana. I have perused Invoice No.228 and 229 both dated 24.9.1997 issued by M/s Jolly Steel Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh and Invoice No.509 and 510 both dated 23.9.1997 of M/s Thapper Ispat Ltd., Ludhiana, whereunder they have supplied allow steel ingots weighing 15.105 MT and 14.165 MT respectively. On the said material M/s Thapper Ispat Ltd., Ludhiana have discharged their duty liability @ 15% adv. And was covered under general scheme of Section 3 of the central Excise Act, 1944 applicable to alloy steel and its products only and not under Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. They party have accepted vide their letter dated 24.8.1998 that they had received the said quantity vide aforementioned two invoices issued by M/s Jolly Steel Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh. This corroborates that the party have actually received alloy steel ingots and cleared its re- rolled/manufactured products without payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty. By doing so, the party had suppressed this fact of manufacturer of alloy steel products and their clearance without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the central Excise Act, 1944……………..” 3. On appeal, the said findings were affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3 C.E.A. No.170 of 2010 5. Submission made on behalf of the appellant is that finding of clandestine removal has been recorded against the appellant merely on the statement of co-accused which could not be acted upon without corroboration. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The adjudicating authority not only took into account the statement of the supplier of goods but also perused the sale invoices, clearly mentioning that the goods were steel ingots which clearly provided corroboration to the version of goods being steel ingots. Thus, concurrent finding of fact recorded by the adjudicating authority, appellate authority and the Tribunal, is not shown to be perverse. 7. No substantial question of law arises. 8. The appeals are dismissed. 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 08, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4