9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. [Order]. - The appellants have these appeals against the order-in-appeal confirming demand of duty and imposition of penalty to the extent of 100% on the company and Rs. 25,000/- on the Director. 2. This is a case of clandestine removal which was detected by recovery of three copies of lorry receipts. There was no dispute about the genuineness of the lorry receipts. However, the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Director's statement was recorded after nearly one year of the recovery of receipts which again goes in favour of the revenue. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the confirmation of demand and interest thereon, if any liable. As regards the penalty on the company I find that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. UOI & Anr. - 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that duty has been paid. No confiscation has been proposed since there was no seizure of the goods and the goods were not available. I am unable to say agree that the Director has not physically dealt with the goods when clearance had been made without payment of duty with his knowledge. Therefore, the liability to penalty is sustained. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
