9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing facility of Modvat credit. On 19-5-1998, the Central Excise Officers seized a truck alongwith bulk drug. The Driver could not produce the duty paying documents. However, on verification the bulk drug found to be duty paid. The officers had got photocopies of invoices, which did not tally with the respective invoices kept in the invoice book of the appellant. The said photocopies of invoices are known as parallel invoices. The appellant No. 4 Shri Dharmendra Singh, Stores Executive and Authorised Signatory of the appellant company in his statement dated 19-5-98 accepted that the excisable goods were cleared without payment of duty under the cover of the said parallel invoices under the directio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty of equal amount on the appellant company and disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 12,708/- and confiscated the seized goods imposed redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Personal penalty was imposed of Rs. 5,000/- each on the other appellants. The Commissioner (appeals) upheld the adjudicating order. 4. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that demand of duty on the basis of parallel invoice is not sustainable as it has no evidential value. He submits that there is no evidence of clandestine removal of the goods. The Central Excise Officers recorded the statements of the appellant under duress, which were retracted by the appellants and therefore such statements cannot be relied upon. He submits that Shri Sandeep Jain, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Gulam Hussain Shaikh Chougule v. S. Reynolds, Supdt. of Cus. Marmgoa reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that confessional statements under Section 108 under Customs Act, 1962 are not required to follow safeguards provided under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is revealed from the impugned order that the appellants have taken a stand that the informer to the department had been a disgruntled, employee of the appellant company who might have fabricated some invoices by photocopying means to persuade the officer of the department to make a case against the company. In my view, such stand cannot be accepted for the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch parallel/fake invoices were issued by the Appellants in the light of these admitted facets I hold that; Photocopies of invoices can not be relied upon for the purposes of establishing any clandestine removal of goods unless the originals are produced . 7. The present case is related to the period of dispute of 1998. It is evident from the record that the Directors of the appellant company, the Authorised Signatory and the Store Keeper accepted the removal of the goods on the basis of the parallel invoice and paid the duty. The parallel invoices as referred in Order-in-Appeal dated 20-1-2006 is detected by the Central Excise officers in their visit on 16th March 2000, as such, the facts of the case of the said Order-in-Appeal are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
