TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clandestine removal of goods resulting in loss of revenue. The assessees have also filed cross appeals, challenging the Commissioner s order confirming demands to the extent of Rs. 3,16,735/- besides imposing Redemption Fine, Penalty and Interest. 2. We have heard both sides in the matter and have perused the entire records. The Revenue s challenge is with regard to the findings recorded in para 22 to 26 of the Commissioner s order. In para 22, the Commissioner has set aside the demands of Rs. 2,29,691/- on the ground that the goods had been cleared on Central Excise invoices and merely because the invoices did not tally with serial numbers, that by itself is no ground to confirm the demand. He has noted that serial numbers had not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement of Shri Kedarnath Agarwal of M/s. Giridharilal Co. These statements were denied by Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal and Shri Chandrakant Agarwal of M/s. Nav Durga. The Commissioner has held that there is no corroborative evidence to prove the illicit removal of the fabrics in question from the factory of M/s. Nav Durga. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the charge cannot be held to have been proved. We are agreeable with this finding and confirm the same. 5. Likewise in para 26, the demand of Rs. 7,44,000/- has been set aside as the demands were made solely on the statement of Shri Kedarnath Agarwal without any corroborative or material evidence to prove that the said goods were clandestinely removed by M/s. Nav Durga. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his statement of Shri Balaram Mishra, Supervisor (Packing) with regard to the modus operandi adopted for removal of the goods. There is no substance in the submission made that there was no clandestine removal. The assessees have also paid the amounts. Therefore, there is no ground to take a different view on the aspect pertaining to valuation as well as confirmation of demand of the amounts noted. The assessees prayer is rejected. 8. The assessees have challenged the confirmation of Redemption Fine, Penalty and Interest under Section 11AB on the ground that Section 11AB was not statute book during the period 1992-1994 when the demands were in question. They have relied on the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Maruti Udyog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
