9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turers of cotton yarn. On the basis of information, the officers of the Central Excise visited the respondent s factory on 30-8-2000 and recovered certain records and private diaries under panchanama. Scrutiny of the said records revealed that the figures of production and clearances shows in RG-1, were lower than the figure shown in recovered private diaries. Statements of Production Manager and other persons were recorded, which indicated that there was clandestine removal of the goods. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, show cause notice was issued to all the four appellants for confirmation of duty and for imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of the duty and imposed equivalent amount of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts as recorded by the authorities would itself did not divulge anything and it has not been established that there has been clandestine removal. 5. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. The main issue involved in this case is whether the clandestine removal of the finished goods has taken place or not based on the records maintained by the company and by the Production Manager. It is undisputed that Shri N.V. Anandwade was the production Manager of the appellant s company i.e. Ved Textiles Pvt. Ltd., during the relevant period. It is also undisputed that the Production Manager has on the date of visit of the officers was maintaining private diaries, which were recovered from the factory pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was in doubt or the private records were maintained by individuals, who were not connected with the assessee. In the current case before me the Production Manager, who is also the authorized signatory of the company, has been maintaining these private records and it cannot be said that the entries in the private records should be held as non-existing. If the Production Manager, who is responsible person in the appellant s factory, maintains the private records to record production, which is not properly recorded in the statutory books, inference would be very clear and has to be drawn against the respondent. In this case, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the respondents on the ground that no evidence has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
