9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities made search and failed to reconcile the quantity of goods found with the circumstantial evidence which were placed before them. While replying to show cause notice the appellant clearly brought out that raw material i.e. fabrics were issued from stock of raw material for job work and return of job worked goods were recorded. That remained undisputed which is patent from show cause notice itself. 1.2 If statement relied upon by Revenue recorded on 27-8-2008 is perused, that also establishes such fact. Relying on reply to question No. 4, it was submitted that the appellant affirmed answer to the investigation that materials are being sent to Sharda Motor Industries, Surajpur Industrial Area, Greater Noida. In the answer to que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had made any attempt to make clandestine removal of excisable goods. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE, Vapi v. Nakoda Textile Industries Ltd. - 2009 (245) E.L.T. 44 (Guj.) to submit that when the storage of raw material and job worked goods have been fairly brought on record there cannot be any conclusion to hold that there was clandestine removal. Therefore, neither redemption fine nor penalty is imposable. Lastly, The Appellant accordingly prays that not only stay applications may be allowed, appeals may also be disposed of being interconnected each other. 1.4 So far as appeal No. E/1735/11 is concerned, learned Counsel argues that when the principal is not liable to any penal conseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... probe to find out whether any job work order was placed with any job worker. Answer to all these questions is negative. 4.2 When the circumstantial evidence were chosen to be evidenced by appellants on the basis of preliminary evidence recorded under Section 14, that brought out material facts for scrutiny by investigation, Revenue could not discard plea of appellant discovering any material evidence against appellant's plea of job work and manufacture of the day. Added to that, it is also strange how the authority below made concurrent finding against the appellant without hearing the pleading of the appellant on the evidence stated in the averments made beginning from 28-7-2008 to 18-2-2009, while reply to show cause notice was fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the allegation failed to stand. But violation of law occurred for not recording the goods on Friday which calls for levy of penalty. At this juncture, it was asked to the appellant to plead defence, if any, on the gravity of offence to decide the quantum of penalty. Shri Narasimhan, learned Counsel says that when nothing could subsist on allegation there should be no penalty at all. Such a proposition cannot be approved to allow excisable goods to remain unaccounted. Therefore, imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- shall be appropriate under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Except this penalty, no other penalty shall sustain. The appellant M/s. Sharda Motors Industries succeeds partly and its appeal partly allowed. Connected appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
