2004 (9) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order]. -  In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,49,469/- with penalty of equal amount against the respondents and separate penalty on its partner D.S. Sodhi of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. The learned JDR has co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore, the impugned order is perfectly valid. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 5.  The perusal of the record shows that duty demand was raised from the respondents on the allegation of clandestine removal of the goods during the period in dispute, involving duty of Rs. 2,49,469/- through show cause notice; which was issued after visit of the Central Excise off .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essive use of the raw material or consumption of the electricity by the respondents had been also brought on record. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals), in my view, under these circumstances, had rightly concluded that the charge of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty by the respondents, did not stand proved. 6. It is well settled that charge of clandestine removal of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X