9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rying of 13.200 M.T. of ingots by truck No. NL05A-9536, were unaccounted. Although above two issues are in the Appeal Case No. ESM-103/05, relating to M/s. JMD Alloys Ltd., such Appeal is integrally connected with Appeal Case No. ESM-105/05 for the second allegation in respect of goods carried by truck owned by Ram Pratap Singh and such goods claimed to be owned by one M/s. Shyam Enterprise, who is Appellant in Appeal Case No. ESM-104/05. Although these two Appeals i.e. ESM-104/2005 and ESM-105/2005 have no bearing with the first allegation of surplus stock found in the factory of the Appellant i.e. M/s. JMD Alloys Ltd., only in view of the statement of the driver of the truck that the goods were taken from the Appellant s factory, Appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or liable to any penalty. The decisions cited by the Id. Counsel are as under :- (i) 2000 (117) E.L.T. 644 (Tribunal) - Threads (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur. (ii) 2000 (117) E.L.T. 647 (Tribunal) - CCE, JSR. v. Bhagwati Oxygen. (iii) 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1185 (Tribunal) - CCE, Allahabad v. Pravesh Castings (P) Ltd. (iv) 2002 (139) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal) - Sonex Plasts (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh. (v) 2002 (139) E.L.T. 650 (Tri.-Mumbai) - Navnit V. Shroff v. CC(ACC), Mumbai. (vi) 2001 (135) E.L.T. 353 (Tribunal) = 2001 (43) R.L.T. 38 (CEGAT-Del.) - Rashtriya Audyogic Sansthan v. CCE, Kanpur. (vii) 2001 (43) R.L.T. 44 (CEGAT-Del.) - Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal. 5. Heard both the sides on the above issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruck driver did not produce any document to prove that the goods transported by the truck had suffered duty. Document produced only showed identity of consigner and consignee and the traded transaction. The driver having named the Appellant, they were rightly implicated to the case. Even if the driver was not cross-examined the Appellant should not escape from legal consequence of law. Therefore the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held against the Appellant. 8. Countering submissions of the Revenue, the ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that origin and destination of the goods in the truck was proved on record and naming the Appellant by the driver was immaterial to implicate the Appellant without cogent evidence against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deterrently without any evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the Appellant cannot to held guilt for the second issue and neither duty nor penal consequence be attributable to the Appellant so far the goods of 13.200 M.T. of bars found in truck No. NL-05A/9536. 10. So far as the proceeding against M/s. Shyam Enterprise is concerned, that Appellant has not come out with documentary evidence to prove that the goods carried by truck No. NL05A/9536 had suffered duty. In absence of any evidence of duty payments in relation to that goods, action taken by the Id. Adjudicating Authority against M/s. Shyam Enterprise was justified. Accordingly their appeal failed. 11. So far as the truck owner Shri Ram Pratap Singh is concerned hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
