ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products and were availing SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. A show cause notice was issued to M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited on the basis of 12 invoices received from the informer and total value of the clearances alleged to have been made by M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited relating to these 12 invoices was of Rs. 17,19,270/- and if the value of these clearances was added to the value of clearance for the year 1994-95 then it come to more than 3 crores. On this ground the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-98 for the subsequent year was denied as the value of clearance for the year 1994-95 was in excess of 3 crores.
2. Another show cause notice was issued on 7-4-2000 to the appellants on the ground that the Revenue had received 13 photocopies of other invoices. The value of the goods alleged to have cleared under these 13 invoices during the period 1995-96 was Rs. 21,12,768/- and if the value of these invoices is added to the value of clearances for the financial year than the value of clearances during the period 1995-96 exceeds to Rs. 3 crores. Hence, M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited were not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption for the preceding year.
3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. On appeal filed by M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand in respect of 12 invoices relating to these show cause notice dated 27-7-99 and set aside the demand of remaining invoice and the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on them.
4. M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited filed the appeal against the confirmation of demand and the Revenue filed appeal against setting aside the demand and for reduction of penalty.
5. Heard both the sides.
6. The contention of M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited is that the duty was confirmed on the ground that 11 invoices out of 12 invoices relating to the show cause notice dated 26-7-99, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents gave opinion that the signatures on the invoices were of Directors/Employees of M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited. The contention of M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited is that no investigation was conducted in respect of raw materials or consumption of power for the production of goods alleged to have been cleared under these invoices.
7. The contention of the Revenue is that the invoices along with the admitted signatures of the Directors/Employees of M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents as per their report, on 11 invoices, the signatures tallied with the admitted signatures, therefore, these invoices were issued by M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited.
8. We find that as per the report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, on 11 invoices, the duty was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the signatures are of Directors/Employees of M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited. This factual position is not disputed by M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order confirming the demand in respect of 11 invoices. Therefore, the appeal filed by M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited is dismissed.
9. In appeal filed by the Revenue, the contention of the Revenue is that the invoices were issued by M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited showing clearances of various customers. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly set aside the demand.
10. The contention of M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited is that out of 12 invoices relating to show cause notice dated 26-7-99 sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents could not confirm the signatures of Directors/Employees of M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited on one invoice. In respect of 13 invoices relating to show cause notice dated 7-4-2000, the contention is that these are photocopies of the invoices and were not sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison with the admitted signatures. In the photocopies of the invoices, the name and address of the customers was mentioned to whom the goods were cleared and enquiry was conducted by the Revenue from the customer in respect of goods received by them under the cover of these invoices.
11. We find that the photocopies of the invoices were received by the Revenue from their informer. These were not recovered from the premises of their customers or from M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited. Therefore, we find that in respect of one invoice out of 12 invoices sent for hand writing expert could not confirm the signatures of Directors/Employees of the firms. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the demand in respect of this invoice.
12. In respect of the demand based on 13 photocopies of the invoices it is admitted fact that these were not sent to hand writing expert to compare the signatures on the invoices with the admitted signatures. Further, we find that no investigation was conducted from the customers whose names and addresses were mentioned in the photocopies of the invoices to whom M/s. Buta Steels (P) Limited alleged to have been cleared goods. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue and the same are also dismissed.