9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. ORDER Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of authorities below. 2. As per facts on record M/s. Raj Ratan Industries Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 26-8-2008, who conducted various checks and verification. As a result shortage of M.S. Ingots to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed upon Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 5. I have heard Ms. Sukriti Das appearing for the appellant and Shri R.K. Mathur appearing for the Revenue. 6. On going through the impugned order I find that the duty demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhingra Metal Works, 2010-TIOL-693-HC-DEL-IT has held that though an admission is extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive. 7. It is well settled law that allegations of clandestine removal are required to be established by the Revenue by production of the concrete and tangible evidence. In the present case apart from the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
