9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: (i) When the officers visited the respondent factory on 4-12-1995, they found shortage of 16817 L. mtrs. of fabrics valued at Rs. 3,34,156/- involving Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 33,415/-. (ii) The duty involved on the shortage which was admitted to have been removed clandestinely was paid on 7-12-1995. (iii) There was certain private production registers which were maintained by the Printing Supervisor of the factory Shri Marutibhai B. Adak, indicating lot wise and date wise entries. This was confirmed by Shri Marutibhai B. Adak and also by Shri Nathu N. Yadav, printing contractor. Shri Upendra R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found on the day of visit by the officers. They admitted clandestine removal of goods found short and paid the duty involved therein. The other private records maintained by Printing Master on the direction of Shri Upendra Roychaudhary indicated unaccounted production and clearance and the same have been admitted by the director of the company in his statement dated 7-6-96. There was no retraction from any of them till show cause notice was issued on 5-1-1999. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned SDR and perused records. The shortage of goods found on the date of visit and clear admission about removal of goods found short and payment of duty is a clear indication of the practice of clandestine removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation for corroboration cannot be held against the Department. After all, the admitted facts need not be proved. Further, these admissions have been given in the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and the same had not been retracted. 6. In the light of the above, the Commissioner's (Appeals) decision in dropping the demand on 2,99,507 L. Mtrs. of fabrics amounting to Rs. 6,36,130/- in reduction of penalties is not proper. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order of the original authority is restored in this regard. However, while restoring the order of the original authority, the order of confiscation of plant and machinery is set aside as the same is very harsh. But fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
