TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per M. Veeraiyan: These are two appeals by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 257-258-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 26.6.08. Cross-Objection No.352, 353/08 are basically in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises of the respondents on 14.6.06, they found the stock of finished goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey did not contest the liability to duty either before the original authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties imposed on both of them on the ground that there was no corroborative evidence for clandestine removal and the duty involved stands paid before issue of show cause notice. 4. Learned SDR reiterates the grounds of appeal, the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat stock of kitchenware and tableware from the factory were removed without issuing any central excise invoices and without payment of central excise duty. The statement of authorised signatory was not retracted. On the other hand, the same has been acted upon by paying the duty involved on 19.6.06 and 7.7.06. The effort of the authorised signatory appears to be to absolve himself of the misdeed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of personal knowledge or intention to evade duty has been relied upon. 9. In the light of the above, the appeals and cross-objections are disposed of as follows:- a) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as the same relates to setting aside the penalty on the respondent firm is concerned, is set aside and the order of the original authority imposing penalty of ₹ 2,04,816/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
