9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of M/s. R.R. Company, appellants. We observe from letter dated 15-1-2001 of M/s. Asawa Associates, Chartered Accounts, that they have requested to decide the appeal on the basis of grounds of appeal and written submissions sent along with the letter. I, therefore, heard Shri J. Singh, learned JDR and perused the record. 2. In this matter on the basis of information Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acco and imposed mandatory penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order confirmed the adjudication order by rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. The appellants have submitted in their memorandum of appeal that the proprietor Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 443 (Tribunal) = 1997 (18) RLT 138; that goods lying in the factory and not being clandestinely removed cannot be confiscated as held in the case of U.P. Sugar Corporation v. CCE - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 949 (T); that the onus to prove is on the Department and in the absence of positive evidence, clandestine removal of the goods has not been proved in the present matter. Reliance was placed on the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng place in his factory it is required under the law that the entries are made in the statutory records. It is also not denied that the excisable goods have been removed from the factory premises without any excisable formalities and without payment of duty and were kept in a room which was not part of the factory premises. As submitted by the JDR the appellants have not brought on record any evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
