2002 (2) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise. 2. In the impugned order, the duty of Rs. 41,415.00 was confirmed against the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants premises were searched and during verification, it was found that nine bags were cleared without pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eturned 1300 gunny bags to the manufacturer as these bags were defective and of poor quality. In respect of recovery of private records, their submission is that Sh. Sandeep Kumar, who had made the entries in the private records, could be trading in cement and charging commission. 6. During verification, Sh. Sandeep Kumar, an authorised representative of the appellants in his statement dated 13- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bags is there on account of the removal of same without payment of duty. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is without any merit. 8. In respect of private records, maintained by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, the contention of the appellants is that Sh. Sandeep Kumar may be trading in cement. On the contrary, the private record was duly stamped with the company seal and signed by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X