TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 54 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory premises was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 22-6-2001. On physical stock taking of the goods and verification of the records, it revealed that no record for the purpose of Central Excise were maintained by them from 1-4-2001 onwards. Physical stock verification resulted in excess stock of man-made fabrics to the extent of 18,303 L.Mtrs. In addition to above shortage of 75,684 L.Mtrs. of processed man-made fabrics as compared to the stock recorded in lot register was detected. 3. In the above background statement of Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, Manager/Authorised signatory of the said unit was recorded on 23-6-2001 wherein he agreed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of Rs. 40,000/-. Personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was also imposed on Shri Sanjeev Agarwal under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. 6. The above order of the Additional Commissioner was appealed against by the respondents, and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confirmation of demand of duty on the ground that there was no evidence on record to prove the allegation of clandestine removal except a confirmative statement of the Manager of the firm. By referring to various precedent decisions of the Tribunal, he observed that investigation has not been completed to allege evasion of duty. Charges of clandestine removal have to be established by corroborative independent evidence and cannot be upheld on the basis of statement g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch as when the assessee himself has admitted that the goods were sold to unknown people in the market, the Revenue cannot be expected to approach the customers and to record their statement for the purpose of corroboration. The fact that Shri Sanjeev Agarwal has given two statements within a gap of 6 months which statements do not stand retracted or refuted by him, is a strong evidence against the respondents. It is further kept in mind that the respondents has voluntarily deposited the amount in question without lodging any protest against it. Further, the fact of shortage of processed fabric stand admitted by the respondents authorized representative in the presence of panchas, which fact has not been disputed by the assessee and there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
