TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 434 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH ], in that circumstances, as demand is on the basis of the documents which have not been proved by the Revenue with corroborative evidence, the demand of ₹ 33,27,521/- is not sustainable. The said demand is set-aside and remaining demand of duty is confirmed as admitted by the appellant - further as the appellant has paid an amount of ₹ 5,64,611/- alongwith interest and 25% penalty within 30 days of the passing of the order, the said demand is confirmed alongwith interest and penalty is reduced to 25% of ₹ 5,64,611/- against M/s Shreyans Industires Ltd. Penalty imposed on Shri Anil Kumar, Executive Director - HELD THAT:- No statement has been able to prove that Shri Anil Kumar was ever having knowledge of clandestine removal of goods, therefore, the penalty on Shri Anil Kumar is not sustainable. Penalty imposed on the other appellants - HELD THAT:- As per the statements recorded during the course of investigation and admission by the appellants, therefore, they cannot escape from their liability of penalizing on them who were engaged in clandestine removal of goods, therefore, the penalty is imposable on the appellants, but, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rishab Papers), Village Banah, Tehsil Balachour, District, Nawashahar under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. vii. I impose penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) against Shri R. K. Mahajan, AGM (Accounts) of M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd. (Unit Shri Rishab Papers), Village Banah, Tehsil Balachour, District Nawahshahar under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. viii. I impose penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) against Shri Vivek Shrotiya, Manager Marketing of M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd. (Unit Shree Rishab Papers), Village Banah, Tehsil Balachour, District Nawanshahar under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. ix. I impose penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) against Shri Puneet Kumar Assistant Sales Officer of M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd. (Unit Shree Rishab Papers), Village Banah, Tehsil Balachour, District Nawanshahar under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that the main appellant is a manufacturing unit engaged in the manufacture of printing paper and soda ash. An intelligence was gathered that the appellant was indulging in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently, the goods were not sold or transported and the trucks were returned back but the GRs remain with the appellants. Sixty GRs were prepared but all were not used for dispatch of the subject goods. He also submits that the appellant has obtained the affidavits of the buyers to the effect that they had not received any goods in clandestine manner. Further, they have also produced the affidavits of the Drivers of the trucks to the effect that the goods have not been transported by them. Shri Mohan Singh has also given an affidavit to the effect that the affidavit of the Drivers are correct. The appellant has asked for the cross examination of the buyers and other persons which have been denied by the Adjudicating Authority by giving no plausible reason. Further, there is no other corroborative evidence to prove the fact of the clandestine removal of the goods by the appellants. In the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has placed reliance upon various statements of the employees of the company to prove the clandestine removal of the goods. It is his submission that there is a statement of Puneet Kumar who had initially stated on 29.05.2003 that there were removing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence or statement against Shri Anil Kumar, the penalty cannot be imposed. 6. With regard to penalty imposed on Shri Raman Marwaha, Shri Vivek Shirotiya and Shri Puneet Kumar, it is his submission that they were employees of the company and no personal motive in the evasion of duty. Therefore, they cannot be penalized. 7. With regard to penalty imposed on Shri Gian Chand Krishan Chand Gupta, it is his submission that no clandestine removal of goods is proved to have been received by the above mentioned party, therefore, no penalty can be imposed. 8. In view of the above, it is his submission that apart from the admission part of the demand of duty, remaining demand is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order qua a demand of ₹ 33,27,521/- is to be set-aside and corresponding penalties are also to be set-aside. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that as it is has been admitted by the appellant that they were engaged in the clandestine removal of goods at least with regard to M/s Sidharth Sales Corporation, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
