9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff Act, 1985. The anti-evasion team of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur visited the premises of the appellant on 15.2.2003 and conducted various checks in respect of goods manufactured and records maintained by the appellant. On physical verification, 16675 metres of grey MMF was found in excess. On the basis of investigation, the department issued the Show Cause Notice, alleged that the appellant had removed the processed MMF under 22 challans to different parties, without payment of Central Excise duty. Further, it has been alleged that the appellant also removed those goods under the cover of 139 challans to the buyers, without payment of Central Excise duty. The Show Cause Notice issued in this regard was adjudicated against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor of the appellant company has categorically stated that the subject goods were removed from the factory without payment of Central Excise duty, no further investigation in this regard was required by the department. Accordingly, confirmation of duty demand on the appellant is proper and justified. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. With regard to clearance of processed MMF under the cover of 139 challans, I find the Director of the appellant company in his statement recorded by the department has stated that the goods were consigned to 'self', which means that the transfer of goods were effected from one stage to the other within the factory premises. In view of the fact that the Director has not specifically admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods removed under 22 challans were upheld as payable by the appellant. Since the adjudicating authority has not given the option to the appellant to deposit the reduced amount of penalty of 25%, I am of the view that such option should be available to the appellant. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority is directed to quantify the amount of reduced penalty, which is required to be paid by the appellant. While computing such reduced penalty amount, he should also consider the amount already deposited by the appellant during the adjudication proceedings. 9. With regard to imposition of personal penalty on the Director of the appellant company, I find that department has not specifically brought on any evidence, showing his involvement in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
