TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is 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 contended that the confessional sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 officers to the factory premises of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the goods against the assessee, has to be establ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
