9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on fine of Rs. 2,79,440/-. In addition, duty of Rs. 1,15,817/- stands confirmed in respect of the said goods. Further, the adjudicating authority confirmed duty of Rs. 2,62,578/- in respect of the raw materials, found short in the appellant's premises during the course of the appellant factory's search and stock taking. Penalty of Rs. 3,79,395/- stands imposed on the manufacturing unit under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act. In addition penalty of the same amount stands imposed on Shri Amit Jain, Director of the manufacturing unit. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant M/s Premier Ispat Ltd, Kanpur, is engaged in the manufacture of M/s Bars. During the course of tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere accepted by Shri Amit Jain, who also debited the Central Excise duty involved therein. 4. As a follow up action, business premises of M/s Jai Maa Sharda Enterprises, Kanpur registered dealer were also put to search Statement of his representative Shri Avinash Singh was recorded, He admitted that the said goods found loaded in the trucks were not covered by any invoice issued by the manufacturer but he has further issued the invoices as dealer. 5. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 12.10.2011 raising demands in respect of the loaded goods as also demands in respect of the shortages detected, The notice also proposed confiscation of the goods and impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aa Sharda Enterprises was located in Kanpur and the appellant's factory was on the outskirts, there was no justification for M/s Jai Maa Sharda Enterprises to issue invoices from the appellant's factory gate. I note that the effect of the entire evidence on record establishes beyond doubt that the goods loaded in the truck were cleared by M/s Premier Ispat Ltd., without payment of any duty of excise and without issuing the invoices. There is no explanation either by M/s Premier Ispat Ltd. or M/s Jai Maa Sharda Enterprises as to from where the said goods were purchased or came into existence. As such, I find that the goods in question were cleared from the appellant M/s Premier Ispat Ltd., with payment duty, thus, justifying confirmation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout any evidence of clandestine removal, cannot lead to inference of evasion of duty. Accordingly, I find no justification for upholding the said confirmation of duty or to impose penalty on the said account. Accordingly, the demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 2,62,578/- is set aside alongwith setting aside of imposition of penalty of identical amount on the said account. 9. As regards the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the Director, I find that Commissioner(Appeals) has given a finding that no specific rule stands attributed to the Director and the matter has not been investigated so as to adduce any evidence against the said assessee. By observing so he has reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. In my views, having observed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
