9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeraiyan, J. REPRESENTED BY :Shri Samir Chitkara, DR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These are Department's appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 264 to 265/2003 (Ahd-I) dated 2-5-03. 2. Heard the learned SDR for the Department. None appeared for the respondents in spite of notice. It is also noticed that on earlier occasion when the case was listed on 20-4-07, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: (i) When the officers visited the respondent factory on 4-12-1995, they found shortage of 16817 L. mtrs. of fabrics valued at Rs. 3,34,156/- involving Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 33,415/-. (ii) The duty involved on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti, Director under Rule 209A. (vi) Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand of Rs. 33,415/- only in respect of shortage found and admittedly removed, reduced the penalty on the respondent company to Rs. 5,000/- and he reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- on the Director. 4. Learned SDR submits that this was a case when shortage was found on the day of visit by the officers. They admitted clandestine removal of goods found short and paid the duty involved therein. The other private records maintained by Printing Master on the direction of Shri Upendra Roychaudhary indicated unaccounted production and clearance and the same have been admitted by the director of the company in his statement dated 7-6-96. There was no retraction from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the private records, admission by the director of clandestine removal and non-retraction of the statements go to show that the findings of the original authority about clandestine removal and demand of duty amounting to Rs. 6,36,130/- are well founded. When there has been admission by the Director himself, not conducting further investigation for corroboration cannot be held against the Department. After all, the admitted facts need not be proved. Further, these admissions have been given in the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and the same had not been retracted. 6. In the light of the above, the Commissioner's (Appeals) decision in dropping the demand on 2,99,507 L. Mtrs. of fabrics amounting to Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
