9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product are required to be substantiated by production of some positive evidence, which is absent in the present case. Even the statement of the partner is not in the nature of any admission of having cleared the goods without payment of duty. As such I am in agreement with the appellant s contention that demand of duty on this ground is not sustainable. As regards the confiscation of seized goods the appellant have taken a stand that the same was production of the day of the visit of the officers and has to be entered in the R.G. 1 register at the end of the day. The above stand was taken in the very first statement before the Revenue. It is the contention of the ld. Consultant that the fabrics in question are only half day s production o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, partner of the appellant company. Penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on M/s. Vakharia Traders and Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the second appellant Shri Biren H. Vakharia, partner of M/s. Vakharia Traders under the provision of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Heard Shri M.N. Saiyed, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant and Shri Arun Chopra, ld. JDR for the Revenue. 3. As per the facts on records the appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 8-8-1998 who conducted various checks and on verification it was found that 123 pcs. of processed man-made fabric were not entered in the R.G. 1 register on a reasonable belief that the same were meant for clandestine clearance, officers s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal. As such the statement cannot be considered as admission on the part of the partner. The ld. Advocate's submission is that at the most it is a case of improper maintenance of the records which can invite penal action under Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which prescribes a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 5. Shri Arun Chopra, ld. JDR countered the above arguments and has reiterated the reasoning of the authorities below. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that entire case of Revenue is based upon non-completion of grey fabric register maintained by the appellant. As contended by the ld. Consultant, if the appellant was having any mala fide intention to clear goods without payment, he would hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
