9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - This is an application for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 26,62,479/- alongwith interest on it at the applicable rate under Section 11AB against the Appellant and penalty of equal amount imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 upheld vide order-in-appeal No. 302/CE/DLH/ 2009 dated 21-12-09 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of furniture and parts thereof chargeable to Central Excise Duty under sub-heading 9403 10 90 of the Central Excise Tariff. They are availing the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003. On receipt of the information that the appellant are misusing the SSI exemption and evading the duty by under reporting the quantum and value of clearances for home consumption, the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers visited their unit by surprised on 19-11-2005 and checked their records. From certain records found in the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable rate as per the provisions of Section 11AB ibid; and (b) imposition of penalty on the Appellant under Section 11AC of the Act readwith Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 14th March 2008 by which the entire duty demand as made in the show cause notice alongwith interest was confirmed and beside this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. On appeal against the Additional Commissioner's order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 302/CE/DLH/2009 dated 21-12-2009 upheld the Additional Commissioner's order and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the present appeal and the stay application have been filed. 4. Heard both the sides in respect of stay matter. 4.1 Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the main duty demand is in respect of the year 2004-2005, that the appellant had cleared goods valued at Rs. 15,50,543/-, Rs. 70,24,583/- and Rs. 1,92,827/- during 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that the goods covered under the so called parallel invoices had not been cleared clandestinely without accountal in the Central Excise records, that in view of the above, neither any duty is recoverable from the appellant nor is there any case for imposition of penalty on them, that from the above, it is clear that the appellant have a strong prima facie case in their favour and in view of this, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of their appeal. 4.2 Shri Sunil Kumar, the learned Departmental Representative, opposed the appellant's plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit and reiterating the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings in the impugned order, pleaded that during 2003-2004 goods valued at Rs. 62,19,766/- had been cleared under parallel invoices without accountal in their records and this fact has been admitted by Shri Surya Kant in his statement dated 19-11-05, that during each of the three years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the appellant had made clearances to 100% EOUs by availing exemption under Notification No. 22/03-C.E., but in respect of those clearances admittedly no CT-3 certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded are the clearances of goods valued of Rs. 62,19,766/- during 2004-2005 which are alleged to have been made under parallel invoices. At the time of the officer's visit to the appellant's factory on 19-11-05, the officers had found a parallel invoice books in which the invoices were not bearing printed serial numbers and the same was other than the invoice books, having printed serial numbers. Shri Surya Kant, authorized signatory of the appellant company, at that time in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act had stated that the invoice books not having printed serial number were also being used for clearances of the goods and under such invoices the goods valued at about Rs. 40,00,000/- had been cleared. Though the appellant now plead that no goods had been cleared under these invoices and that the name of buyers on the parallel invoices are the same those in the regular invoices, no evidence in this regard has been produced. Moreover Shri Surya Kant's statement that under such parallel invoices the goods valued at about Rs. 40,00,000/- had been cleared, has not been retracted. 6.2 We also find that during each of the financial years there were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
