TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. We find only one small error in the said findings as regards the appellant’s production of invoices, challans was not put to scrutiny by the lower authorities only on the ground that it was produced at appeal stage. Be that as it may, as there is admission by the authorised signatory of the appellant’s firm and also there being no retraction, and there being no defence reply before the adjudicating authority, we consider the said statement as an evidence to hold that the appellant had in fact engaged themselves in illicit clearance of the final products from the factory premises during the month of April 1995. To that extent, the appellant’s appeal against the impugned order stands rejected. During the relevant period provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o M/s. Dhara Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. on different dates. After detailed investigations and recording statements, it was noticed that the main appellant have illicitly removed textured yarn to the tune of Rs.7503.170 Kgs without payment of central excise duty. The fact of illicit removal was admitted by Shri Ratan Singh Purohit supervisor cum authorised signatory of the appellant. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants and the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands raised in the show cause notice along with equivalent amount of penalty and personal penalty on the individual. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority also agreed with the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th sides, we find that in this case, the statement of the authorised signatory clearly indicates that the appellants were removing the goods illicitly from the factory premises. On specific question from the Bench, the appellant s counsel was not able to state whether the said statement was retracted or any contrary evidence is produced on record except for the invoices which indicate purchase of textured yarn from the market. We find that the first appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority in their orders have properly analysed the evidences produced by the appellant. We find only one small error in the said findings as regards the appellant s production of invoices, challans was not put to scrutiny by the lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the main appellant M/s. KDS Textiles Pvt. Ltd. is reduced to Rs.2.5 lakhs instead of Rs.5,36,655/-. 7. As regards the personal penalty imposed on the individual, we find that the penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed on the said person is justified and very reasonable one considering the fact that he being authorised signatory has given the statement that the appellant company was engaged in illicit removal of goods from the factory premises and the said statements stand un-retracted till date. 8. Accordingly, while upholding the duty liability on M/s. KDS Textiles Pvt. Ltd., we reduce the penalty imposed on M/s. KDS Textiles Pvt. Ltd. to Rs.2,50,000/- and maintain the penalty imposed on the individual Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
