Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 34 - CESTAT NEW DELHIClandestine removal - statement of other persons – Search was conducted and some unaccounted goods were seized.– Confiscation - Demand of duty/penalty – Held that – duty demand for goods found short in the premises of the first appellant is payable. Further the first appellant has to explain the nature of the goods found at the premises of Rider Sales Corporation which is its own premises. There is no argument that the goods manufactured at the premises of Deepak Enterprises were being sent to this premises. So in the facts of the case the duty demanded in respect of such goods also is maintainable unless the goods found short at the factory and the goods found at the premises of Rider Sales Corporation are the same. The adjudicating authority may check this aspect and quantify the demand. Regarding goods seized at the premises of various dealers - held that:- the only evidences are the statements of the dealers and the same were not allowed to be cross-examined apparently because they are co-noticees. Once the persons giving statements are not cross-examined the value of the statements as evidence comes down. This aspect also is not considered in investigations and proceedings. Considering all these aspects I am of the view that the duty demand on goods seized at the dealers’ premises is confirmed without adequately proving the case that there was excise duty liability to be discharged by the first appellant in respect of the goods and such liability was not paid. That being the case the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on the dealers are not maintainable. So the appeal by appellant is partially allowed as per orders above.
|