9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Ajay Saxena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The duty of Rs. 69,73,171.81 (Rupees sixty nine lakhs seventy three thousand one hundred seventy one and eighty one paise only) has been confirmed against the appellants along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Naresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther documentary records were being maintained by it. 3. However, subsequently it was found that the inputs used by the appellants was non-duty paid ship breaking scrap and as such the conditions of the notification were not satisfied. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty and imposition of penalty. The said notice culminated into an order passed by the proper office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the raw materials from the open market, the same was deemed to have been duty paid and the appellants as well as the revenue was under the bona fide impression that the conditions of the notification in question was satisfied and they were entitled to the benefit of the same. 5. Ld. Advocate has also drawn our attention to the fact that all the purchase vouchers were placed before the audit par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments, including the purchase bills, ready for their verification. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants have refused to produce the purchase bills before the auditors. Mere non initialled of the said documents, does not ipso facto reflect that these documents were not produced before the auditors or the appellants made special efforts to keep them away from the audit party. These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
