9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. ORDER Appeal No. E/118/08 is by the party and Appeal No. E/3177/07 is by the Department against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 339-CE/APPAL/KNP/2007 dated 31-10-2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers visited the manufacturer's premises on 14-3-05 and conducted stock verification of finished goods. Instead of stock of 127. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The party filed appeal against the order of the original authority before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 31-10-07 upheld the demand of duty and interest; he set aside the penalty under Section 11AC; he sustained penalty under Rule 25. The party is in appeal challenging the demand of duty, order for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been done in the presence of independent witnesses, Director and the authorised signatory. The letter dated 16-3-05 should not be given cognisance. The affidavit filed by one panchnama witness also does not change the situation. Since the shortage has been admitted, it must be presumed that there was clandestine removal and penalty under Section 11AC should be restored as imposed by the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of alleged clandestine removal requires some more evidence corroborating such clandestine removal. In this case, no such evidence either in the form of private records relating to clandestine removal or admission statement of the authorised signatory or the Director about clandestine removal or any other such evidence has been relied upon. 6. In view of the above, the charge of clandestine remova ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
