TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that there is no evidence to corroborate the suppression of production and clandestine removal of goods is not correct and has to be rejected - appellant has admitted clearly, suppression of production and clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty. Therefore, the onus shifts to the appellant to prove the contrary which the appellant has not discharged at all. The private records maintained by the appellant giving details of production and clearance of the goods is a corroborative evidence and entries made therein have been corroborated by the statements of Shri Vijay Makhija, Managing Director of the appellant-firm and by the statement of Shri Anil Budhawani, partner of the sole dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to approach the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for inspection and taking copies of the documents which the appellants failed to comply with. The appellant also did not avail of the number of opportunities given to them for personal hearing and accordingly he has proceeded to adjudicate the matter based on the replies filed by the appellant, M/s. Markas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and vide the impugned order a duty demand of Rs. 18,57,661/- was confirmed along with interest under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also penalty of equivalent amount has been imposed under Section 11AC of the said Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each has been imposed on Shri Vijay L. Makhija, Managing Director of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise, Madurai - 2005 (145) E.L.T. 616 in support of the above contentions. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the appellants were given adequate opportunity to inspect and take copies of the documents relied upon which the appellants failed to avail. Therefore, the appellants cannot plead that the relied upon documents have not been supplied to them. Similarly, a number of opportunities were given to the appellant to appear for personal hearing which also they did not avail and, therefore, it is on account of appellants own fault that the case had to be adjudicated ex parte. 4.1 As regards reliance on private documents, the learned Additional Commissioner submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector, Central Excise, Satara Division. Thereafter, the appellant did not pursue the matter. Thus, it is seen that the appellants had been given copies of the documents and also been provided with opportunity to inspect and take copies of other documents. Therefore, the charge of the appellant that principles of natural justice were denied on account of non-submission of documents is not borne-out from the facts available on record. It is further seen that the appellants were given number of opportunities to appear for personal hearing, namely, on 29-1-2004, 11-2-2004 and 5-3-2004. In spite of these opportunities, the appellants chose not to appear before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the charge of the appellants that the principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not accounted for in the RG-1 register. Similarly, the statement of Shri Anil Pahlaraj Budhawani, Managing Partner of the dealer of the appellant, i.e., M/s. Makhija Enterprises Co., who was the sole distributor for the products manufactured by the appellant, it is clear that, many of the transactions, though shown to have been supplied to M/s. Makhija Enterprises Co., were directly supplied by the appellant-firm to various customers. However, on paper, the transactions were shown to have been supplies made to M/s. Makhija Enterprises. In respect of these transactions, the payments were also made by the customers directly to the appellant-firm, though the bills were issued by M/s. Makhija Enterprises Co. This statement of the sole distribut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f these evidences available on record, the finding of the adjudicating authority with respect to clandestine production and removal of goods cannot be faulted at all. Accordingly, we uphold the demand of duty of Rs. 18,57,661/- along with interest thereon. Since the appellant has resorted to suppression of facts, penalty under Section 11AC is clearly attracted. The decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills [2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] supports this proposition. Accordingly, we uphold the penalty of Rs. 18,57,661/- imposed on the appellant-firm. 5.4 As regards the penalties imposed on the Managing Director and other Directors of the appellant-firm, the involvement of Shri Vijay Makhija, who is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
