TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered is from the sale proceeds of clandestinely removed Gutka. The allegation of clandestine removal does not stand in view of the lack of evidences on record and also the statements relied upon by Revenue are not a good piece of evidence as they are hit by section 9D of the Central Excise Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/257/2012-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO.72491/2018 - Dated:- 18-9-2018 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) And SHRI ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri B.L. Narasimhan (Advocate) Shri Ayush Agarwal (Advocate) for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl. Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Anil Choudhary : Appellant is Proprietor of M/s Jai Gange Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor Shri Manoj Kumar Sahu. Both of them reside in their ancestral home. Further it was found that the residential premises belongs to the family and various firms namely M/s.Sangam Enterprises, M/s.Prayag Industries, M/s.Sanjay Kirana Store etc. owned by his brothers. Further, it appeared that cash amounting to ₹ 1,75,000/- recovered, was the sale proceeds of clandestinely removed Gutka. On further scrutiny of documents at File No.11 of the Panchnama drawn at the premises of Ganesh Traders/Shree Ganesh Traders owned by Shri Manoj Kumar Sahu, indicated removal of Gutka clandestinely without payment of Central Excise duty, by M/s. Jai Gange Industries. At page 31 of the appeal, data is available such as date of manufacture, slip numbers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing can be inferred from such agreement to come to a conclusion that the cash recovered was sale proceeds of clandestinely removed Gutka. It was also contended that the show cause notice dated 11.06.2007 was not given within six months from the date of seizure and as such the order of confiscation is bad. Consequently penalties under Rule 26 is not imposable. 3. Ld. Commissioner confirming the demand observed that in view of the fact that the statement of appellant was recorded under section 14 on 31.05.2007 and it was admitted that cash amounting to ₹ 1,75,000/- was the sale proceeds of clandestinely removed Gutka and the fact of illegal trade of Gutka, on which no duty was paid, runs across the family members of the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
