9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Prem Chand Jain, Director and Sh. J.D. Pant, General Manager. The same order has also been challenged by the Revenue. 2. Acting on the information that the assessee has indulged in clandestine removal of finished goods without payment of duty, Central Excise Officers carried out search operations in the assessee's factory as well as the residence of Sh. P. C. Jain, Director and other connected premises on 06.07.2012. From the factory premises, the officers recovered 32 loose slips/ kachhi parchis from the office premises of the assessee. On physical verification of stock of finished goods shortage of finished products to the extent of 88.209 MT was noticed involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,31,199/-. Statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication, the ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order as follows: (i) Demand of Excise duty on clandestine clearance was upheld to the extent of Rs. 30,01,451/-; (ii) Demand amounting to Rs. 30,85,849/- was dropped; (iii) Penalty equal to the duty confirmed was imposed under Section 11AC; (iv) Penalties are also imposed under Rule 26 on Sh. J. D. Pant, General Manager and Sh. P. C. Jain, Director for Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appeals have been filed by the assessee, General Manager and Director against the demand for excise duty and penalties. Appeal has also been filed by the Revenue challenging the dropping of the duty demand. 5. With the above background, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority in this regard. We are of the view that since the adjudicating authority has given detailed findings that all the goods covered by 25 kachha parchis have been cleared on payment of duty, we find no reason to take a different view. Consequently, we uphold the dropping of demand of Rs. 30,85,849/- and reject the Revenue's appeal. 7. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand amounting to about Rs. 30 lakhs on the basis of seven kachha parchis in respect of which the assessee was not in a position to submit proof for clearance of goods under invoices without payment of duty. He has further recorded that both Sh. J. D. Pant, General Manager as well as Sh. P.C. Jain, Director have given inculpatory statements un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No investigation appeared to have been carried out to prove that such goods were manufactured in the factory but not accounted for. 9. Clandestine clearance is a serious allegation and needs to be established on the basis of tangible evidence. It is well established fact that only on the basis of the inculpatory statement, the charges of clandestine clearance cannot be upheld. The inculpatory statements given by the General Manager and Director also do not specifically cover the seven parchis. In the absence of any corroborative evidence to indicate that the goods covered by seven parchis were cleared by the appellant, we are of the view that the charge of clandestine clearance and demand of duty cannot be sustained. The assessee has cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
