9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and removal of their final products during the periods - from 1992-93 to 1996-97. In addition, he has imposed personal penalty of identical amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 8.0 lakh (Rupees eight lakh) under the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has also confiscated the unaccounted goods with an option to the appellant company to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 2.50 lakh (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand). 2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ball Bearings and Roller Bearings falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant company s factory was visited by the Central Excise Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the actual production was much more than what was being reflected in their records. 6. On the above basis, the appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 11-4-97 proposing confiscation of the seized goods, confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of personal penalty. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner who confirmed the demand and imposed penalties as detailed above. Hence the present appeal. 7. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate for the appellant-company submits that the entire case of the Revenue rests on the statements of the appellant company s employees, which statements were retracted by them by way of affidavits. Such affidavits have been rejected by the adjudicating authority as having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the appellants premises showing the sales of the ball bearings without bills and without reflecting the same in the statutory records. No doubt the charge of clandestine removal is a serious charge and Revenue is required to prove it by sufficient evidence. However, in the instant case, we find that the statements of the employees as also the Proprietor taken together and the documents referred to by the Revenue, corroborate the charge of clandestine removal. As such, we do not find any justification in the learned Advocate s plea that the Revenue has not discharged the burden of establishing that the appellants have removed the final products surreptitiously. 10. However, we find force in the appellants contention that the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
