9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of M/s.KIL at J-1200, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon on 12.11.2008, certain pen drives, CPUs and Lap Tops, ingot purchase file, documents relating to purchase of raw materials i.e. M.S.ingots and MS scrap and raw materials recovered. At that time, in that premises, three employees Shri Ravi Saini, Ratan Gard and J.K.Yadav of M/s.KIL were present. There was rent agreement between Shri Ravi Saini and landlord. The purchase file, pen drives and CPUs were placed under seizure in the presence of Panchas. The purchase file contained the details regarding purchase of steel ingots by M/s.KIL from various manufacturers including M/s. Young Steels Pvt. Ltd. According to the entries in the purchase file during the period from 1.4.2008 to 11.11.2008, M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the above mentioned duty demand was confirmed against the appellant company alongwith interest on it under section 11AB and while penalty of equal amount were imposed on the appellant company under section 11AC, penalty of Rs. 10 lakh was imposed on Shri Devender Arora under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Against this order of the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed alongwith stay applications. 4. Heard both sides in respect of stay applications. 5. Ms. Surbhi Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the entire duty is based on two types of documents - (a) purchase file recovered at premises of M/s.KIL at J-1200, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon on 12.11.2008, a portion which had been rented out to M/s.KIL, and ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not sustainable, that in view of this, in the present case duty demand of Rs. 61 lakh based on data retrieved from pen drives would not be sustainable, more so, when the cross examination of the person from whose premises, the pen drives had been recovered has not been allowed and even panchnama seizure is not signed by the seizing officer. She pleaded that in these circumstances, the amount of Rs. 10 lakh already deposited by the appellant is sufficient for hearing their appeals and the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeals and recovery thereof may be stayed. 5. Ld.DR opposed the stay applications by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, pleaded that the amount paid by the appellant during the investigation is not safeguard to the interests of the Revenue. 6. We have considered the submissions made from both sides and perused the records. 7. Out of total duty demand of Rs. 74,06,356/-, Rs. 12.93 lakh is based on the entries in the purchase file recovered on 12/11/2008 from the premises of M/s.KIL at J-1200, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon , a portion of which was rented out to Shri Ravi Saini, an employee of KIL. There is no dispute that Shri Devender Arora, Managing Director of the appellant company in his statement dated 19.3.2009 when shown the above mentioned purchase file, admitted that the entries in this purchase file pertaining to his company are true, and that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
