9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant has indulged in manufacture and clearance of Pan Masala without payment of duty from their premises during the relevant period - Keeping in view the interest of Revenue, the Applicant to deposit 50% of the duty confirmed excluding the amount already deposited – upon such deposit rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted. - Appeal No.Ex.Ap.467/11 - ORDER NOSO/71018/2013 - Dated:- 19-8-2013 - DR.D.M. MISRA AND DR. I.P. LAL, JJ. For the Respondent : Shri S. Chakraborty, A.C.(A.R.) ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra 1. This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.3.00 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Ld. Commissioner has recorded evidences against the Appellant at para 5.4.2, 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 of the order which are reproduced as below:- 5.4.2. As regards the contention of the party the search of adjacent M/s.Gorisankar Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. (Flour Mill) is illegal, is not valid. The notice clearly states that the Preventive team was led by the Assistant Commissioner, who is the proper officer under the law to authorize the search. When the proper officer who is empowered to authorize the search is himself present and leading, there is no need to issue any search warrant or authorization. Further from the facts of the case, namely adjacent premises with common entry and exit, statement of Sri S.S. Patro, Proprietor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is needed for the same. Further, I find that the assessee while arguing so, is accepting the existence of the 4 new machines on 11.06.09, has simultaneously disputed the same by stating that the 4 nos. of new machines actually received in their premises on 09.07.09 i.e. almost after one month of the visit of the officers. Thus there is neither any consistency nor any coherence in the reply of the assessee. 5.4.4. Regarding the allegation that the statements recorded were not voluntary but under the threat and force, I find this to be an after-thought. The statements recorded on 11.06.09 have not been retracted by the assessee at any time afterwards. But only in the reply they have resorted to a plea which is nothing but an afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
