9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed against the confirmation of duty demand, penalty etc. as made in the adjudication order No. 25/CE/JPR-II/97, dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The facts leading to the passing of the adjudication order are that the Central Excise officers intercepted an auto rickshaw which was carrying P.V. Yarn on 5-8-1995. The driver of the auto rickshaw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bers given on the packing slip of the goods covered by the Inovice dated 4-8-1995. They contended that the tallying of the numbers confirm their explanation that the goods transported in the auto rickshaw on 5-8-1995 were a part of the goods which had been removed on payment of duty under the Invoice dated 4-8-1995. This explanation did not carry conviction with the adjudicating authority as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full particulars, inasmuch as no details of the tempo in which the goods were to be transported on 4-8-1995 were given. He also submitted that the transportation carried out by the appellant was under clear violation of Rule 52A(4) of the Central Excise Rules which stipulated that if a consignment is transported on different dates, separate invoice should be issued for each transaction. 4. Goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rary evidence was available. Appellant s factory also did not reveal any unaccounted production. In these facts and circumstances, it would appear that the appellant s explanation regarding splitting up of the consignment was required to be accepted. There is no justification for holding that the 6 bags of yarn transported on 5-8-1995 were clandestinely removed without payment of duty. 5. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
