TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-1-2018 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Hon ble Judicial Member Sri D. Haldar, A.C. (A.R.) For Appellant Sri Anjan Dasgupta, Advocate For Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary Briefly stated the facts of the case are that 2. M/s. Kunj Bihari Steel Private Limited ( the Assessee ) is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Sponge Iron classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 . On 27.05.2014, the Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise, Intelligence (DGCEI), Kolkata Zonal Unit conducted a search at the Factory and Office premises of the Assessee including some other places. The said Officers also recorded the statement of Shri Amit Kumar Agarwal, Director of the Assessee company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Act, 1944 is warranted. He further submitted that Shri Amit Kumar Agarwal, Director of the assessee company, in his statement, stated that he had knowledge of the clandestine removal of the goods. Therefore, the imposition of penalty on the Director of the Assessee by the Adjudicating authority is required to be restored. The Learned authorised representative drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication Order. 7. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee and its Director reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is submitted that the Assessee paid the duty in order to avoid further litigation, hence, it is not a case of clandestine removal of the goods and there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut I find that when the Director himself could not provide the details and admitted to the fact that there was clandestine removal, the said defence also does not have any merit. In my view, if the Director of the Noticee No.1 who is the main beneficiary of any illegal/legal activities of the firm, admits, in his statement that there was clandestine removal of the finished goods, further corroboration, if any, may not be necessary. It is also evident from the oral submission made by Shri Partha Sengupta, Employee of Noticee No.1 at the time of personal hearing that they want waiver of interest penalty proposed in show cause notice. It means, the Noticee No.1 has accepted the duty liability as stated in their letter dated 27.05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Officer in so far as the author or authors of the impugned register and files, alleged by the department as the document under which the goods were cleared have neither been identified nor examined. In any event, I do not find any material on record that the assessee has disowned the records and documents. It has also not given any satisfactory explanation against the entries of the said register. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal on the issue of clandestine removal but he had not examined the facts of the case in proper manner. It is well settled law that the judicial precedence would be applied in the context of each facts of the case. In the present case, I find that the Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
