TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned, the place was searched on 24.09.2003 and the show-cause notice has been issued on 28.12.2007 which is within five years and therefore, keeping in view the clandestine nature of the clearance the proviso to Section 11A would be applicable. However, as far as penalty is concerned, we find that in the investigation further details have not been investigated and under the circumstances, penalty imposed under Section 11AC is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/86044/13- Mum - - - Dated:- 16-2-2015 - Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri V.K. Shastri, AC (AR) ORDER Per: P.K. Jain: The brief facts of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn confirmed the said order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant are before us. 2. The main contention of the ld. counsel for the appellant is that the demand cannot be made purely based on the statement without any corroboratory evidence. The other contention is that they should have been permitted cross examination of various persons and for these reasons the matter should be remanded back. It is also contended that the demands is barred by limitation. Yet another contention that the penalty is not imposable as there is no proof relating to excess power consumption or consumption of excess of raw material or any statement of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty as the customer wanted the goods at a cheaper rate. The statement was further corroborated by the statement of Shri Kishan G. Gadekar and Shri Chandu Singh. The said statement was retracted after a period of 3 years and four months and retraction was of a general nature without going into details. It is well settled that admitted facts need not be proved. This has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Govindasami Raghupati 1998 (98) ELT 50 (Mad). 6. In the present case, the appellants director has admitted clearance of the goods without payment of duty without accounting any records and from the statement or details provided from him, no further investigation could have been carried out. In view of the said pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
