9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,88,850/- (2) Rs. 38,05,826/- (3) Rs. 25,200/- respectively was confirmed against Appellant No. 1, besides imposition of penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs and demanding interest on delayed payment under Section 11AC, and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on Mr. Khanna. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that the Appellant No. 1 had :- (a) Removed excisable goods clandestinely against parallel invoices. (b) Removed excisable goods viz. ethyl vanillin reflected in the monthly stock statements of finished goods for the month of March, 1997 and the details of the bills furnished to the Bank. (c) Failed to produce proof of export of goods cleared for export under bond. The submissions made by the appellants to refute the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 3. The next allegation relates to removal of goods against parallel sets of invoices. The names of the parties figuring in the fraudulent invoices and the value is different as compared to the details figuring in invoices against which the duty has been debited in the RG 23A part II. The appellant No. 2 admitted in his statement that the handwriting in both the sets of invoices is similar and belongs to one Shri S.K. Upadhyaya, who left the company and his whereabouts are not known. The duty amount that was required to be debited in respect of the duplicate invoices was quantified as Rs. 8,88,850/- Part payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. five lakhs) paid as deposit was appropriated. 4. Besides details have been furnished to the Bankers o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which have been supplied to the appellants. The appellants could have themselves approached the parties figuring in the duplicate invoices and obtained their affidavits to say that they have not received any goods, if that was the true position. We are unable to see as to how the appellants were denied the natural justice on account of failure in supplying the documents, the contents and existence of which is not known. 8. The next ground of defence is that Bank statement alone cannot lead to presumption of higher production and its clandestine removal. We agree that without corroboration, bank statements cannot lead to the conclusion of evasion. However, in this case, as we have extracted the findings of the Commissioner to the effect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
