TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19.2.2008 was used to conceal clandestine removal of the goods of 20.2.20008. So also when plea of repair of truck was advanced there was no evidence to show that the truck returned with the goods of 19.2.2008, if any loaded therein. Accordingly, it is not possible to hold that the seized goods were not cleared out of the goods manufactured on 20.2.2008 in view of peculiar circumstance of hot ingots found in truck. Entire defence plea being pulpable were without credence and edifice for which adjudication is bound to be sustained - Fine and penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. 1302 to 1304/2010-SM - - - Dated:- 4-12-2012 - Shri D.N. Panda, J. For the Appellant: Shri Shiv Shankar and Shri Ajay Singhal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated that deserves reasonable consideration. 2. On the other hand, learned Jt. CDR brings out the case of Revenue submitting that the documents of 19.2.2008 was an instrumentality to conceal the clearance of 20.2.2008 so as to facilitate clandestine removal of goods found in the intercepted truck on 20.2.2008 morning. The distance between factory of manufacture and place of interception was only 20 k.m. Freshlymanufactured goods with temperature in the ingots were loaded in the truck. That was discovered by investigation. Driver of the vehicle stated that when the goods were loaded it was 09.30 hrs. of 20.2.2008. He ruled out the seized goods to be of 19.2.2008. It was further submitted by learned Jt. CDR that when the statement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of 20.2.2008 and possibly loaded at 0930 hrs. of 20.2.2008, when the appellants failed to produce any evidence to show that the goods were not manufactured on 20.2.2008 for transportation of goods on 20.2.2008. This clearly shows that truck was available even meeting its repair on 19.2.2008 for transportation of goods on 20.2.2008. This also proves that the invoice No. 1438 dated 19.2.2008 was used to conceal clandestine removal of the goods of 20.2.20008. So also when plea of repair of truck was advanced there was no evidence to show that the truck returned with the goods of 19.2.2008, if any loaded therein. Accordingly, it is not possible to hold that the seized goods were not cleared out of the goods manufactured on 20.2.2008 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
