9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned goods. These transactions from SSI units with Appellant No. 2 were not properly accounted for and there is sufficient doubt about said transactions. As find from work orders that Appellant No. 1 had asked for excise invoice but Appellant No. 2 gave nothing for the supply of goods to their buyers. The Department has successfully unearthed the clandestine removal of the goods with intent to evade payment of duty as both the appellants could not produce any evidence for procurement of such goods. This is sufficient ground for involving extended period under Section 11A Pleas of the appellant in respect of penalty have strong ground as Appellant No. 2 have not contravened any provisions of Central excise act and rule made ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d without issuance of any Central Excise evidences and without payment of Central Excise duty. The Department initiated proceedings against them and confirmed the demand of Rs.1,65,491/- under Section 11AC confirmed against the appellant and equal amount of penalty by the Lower Adjudicating Authority and penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on DDMPL. However, they dropped the penalty against DDMPL. Aggrieved by the same, they challenged the Lower Adjudicating Authority s order before Ld. Commr. (Appeal). Ld. Commr. upheld the impugned order. Hence the appellant are in appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that they have no infrastructure to manufacture the goods and therefore they have procured the goods from market and supplied thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that the appellant have not submitted any purchase invoice of such unit from where they claimed to have bought the impugned goods. These transactions from SSI units with Appellant No. 2 were not properly accounted for and there is sufficient doubt about said transactions. I find from work orders that Appellant No. 1 had asked for excise invoice but Appellant No. 2 gave nothing for the supply of goods to their buyers. The Department has successfully unearthed the clandestine removal of the goods with intent to evade payment of duty as both the appellants could not produce any evidence for procurement of such goods. This is sufficient ground for involving extended period under Section 11A of the said Act. In my view when it is establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
