9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been imposed on him – Held that: - penalty has been imposed on the company or the firm, it does not mean that penalty is not required to be imposed or no penalty can be imposed on the director, partner or employees - - E/1095-1096/2008 - A/51-52/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 1-1-2010 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri K.A. Sindhi, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals falling under Chapter 29 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the visit of central excise officers on 17-3-2006 duplicate copies of 11 delivery challans issued during the period from September, 2005 to March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut any other evidence such as purchase of raw materials, electricity consumption, statement of transportation, statement of buyers etc. Learned DR on the other hand submitted that what is admitted need not be proved and this is a settled law. Recovery of delivery challans showing evidence of clandestine removal of goods and admission statement of the director which has not been retracted at all are sufficient and therefore no further investigation was required to be conducted at all. He also relies upon several decisions in sup port of his contention that what is admitted need not be proved and also the imposition of penalty and submission of demand are to be upheld. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. In this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been discharged at any stage during the proceedings. Therefore in view of this position I do not find that the appellants have made out a case in their favour. Further, I find that the reliance of the consultant on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of SB. Packaging Ltd. re ported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 360 (P H) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 124 (P H) is not relevant in view of the fact that in that case a view was taken that intention to evade duty was required to be established. In the facts of this case I have already come to the conclusion that department has indeed established such an intention by recovery of delivery challans and the statement of director. Therefore I do not find that this decision is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held, in para 5 of the judgment, that once it was an admitted position by the party itself, that the parts in question were parts of a chilling plant and the concerned party did not even dispute that they had no independent use, there was no need for the Department to prove the same. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Carpenter Classic Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, reported in 2006 (200) E.L.T. 593, for the proposition that in a quasi judicial proceedings the 'Tribunal was concerned more with a preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Indore v. Prashant Electrode, reported in 2006 (196) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
