TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rials and administrative expenses. There was also evidence of clandestine removal of goods. These were all discernible from documentary evidences and the computer statements recovered on search. Being the Managing Director of the company during the relevant period, the appellant could not have been exonerated from the liability, in view of the evidence, which have been elaborately discussed by the fact finding authorities. The appellant cannot state that he was not aware of the activities of his factory. Retraction of statements given on oath, alone would not exonerate him. There is absolutely no reason for us to re-appreciate the evidence on facts. There is no illegality or infirmity pointed out by the Counsel appearing for the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was conducted on 8th July, 2003, resulting in seizure of various incriminating documents and computer CPUs containing vital data supporting the information. 6185 sheets of decorative plywood, valued at ₹ 91,50,211/- were also seized under Panchanama dated 1-9-2003. Statements under Section 14 of the Act were recorded. The appellant later retracted his statement, as per Annexure A. Show cause notices were issued imposing penalty for clandestine manufacture and removal of goods from the factory. Annexures B and C are the replies to the notices. After considering the objections raised in the replies, the duty liability on the company was confirmed and a penalty of ₹ 20 lakhs was imposed as per Annexure D, under Rule 209A of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty took place during the period 1999-2000 till the date of search on 8-7-2003. 4. The question of law arising, as re-framed by us, from those the assessee raised in the memorandum, as follows : Whether the imposition of penalty to the tune of ₹ 20 lakhs on the appellant without any documentary evidence and based on uncorroborated oral statements was proper? 5. We heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the Learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 6. The appellant has been directed to pay penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which reads thus : 209A. Penalty for certain offences . - Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rks of the company, purchase of raw materials, etc.; and there are materials to show that expenses were met without showing them in the statutory accounts of the company. Retraction of the statement on oath is a self-serving exercise, on afterthought, not worthy of reliance as against the earlier statement on oath. 8. There is absolutely no reason for us to re-appreciate the evidence on facts. There is no illegality or infirmity pointed out by the Counsel appearing for the appellant to interfere with the findings on facts by the authorities and the Tribunal. The question of law as framed by us following those raised in the memorandum, is in fact a question of fact. The various documentary evidences and the statements recorded on oa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
