9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in the instant case the appellant could not produce any plausible reason or any other material evidence to validate the shortage found in the stock of their finished goods by the preventive officers. The argument given by the appellant that weighment of the goods was not done by the preventive officers in a correct manner also does not carry much force as the entire proceedings were conducted under Panchanama before independent panchas. Also the said panchnama was signed by an employee of the appellant and the proceedings of the same were not retracted by the appellant. The case laws submitted by the representative of the respondent during personal hearing on 22.1.13 are applicable to the issue. As such, I find that the impugned order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice proposed to (i) demand and recover the central excise duty of Rs. 4,37,956/- under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the alleged shortages of finished goods (ii) recover interest under Section 11 AB ibid. (iii) impose penalty under the Section 11 AC ibid read with Rule 25 of C.Ex. Rules 2002. 2.3 The show cause notice was confirmed by the original authority and affirmed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 3.1 Appellant submitted a letter that he is in critical state of health and cannot pursue this appeal, which may be allowed on the basis of submissions made. 3.2 We have heard Shri Xavier Mascarenhas Superintendent Authorized Representative for the revenue. 4.1 We have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tangible evidences and should not be arrived at on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. It does not require the support of any judicial pronouncement to observe that the charges of clandestine removal being quasi-criminal are required to be proved sufficiently and such findings cannot be arrived at the assessee in the realm of conjunctions and surmises. Case of the Revenue is based upon the statement of the co-accused which statements are not supported by any independent corroborative evidence. It is again well settled that confession of co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and Court must corroborate the purported confession from independent sources. Reference in this regard is made to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
