9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Anil Kr.Choudhury, Directors of the Applicant No.1 for waiver of personal penalty of Rs.50.00 Lakhs imposed on each of them under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. These Applications were listed on 30.04.2013 and adjourned to 04.06.2013 at the request of the Applicants. On 02.07.2013 Shri K.K. Acharya, Ld. Advocate for the Applicants had appeared and submitted that the factory belonging to Applicant No. M/s. Auro Ispat (India) Pvt. Ltd. had been sold and he does not have any instruction on representing the Applicant. Consequently, to get it clarified, he sought adjournment and accordingly it was adjourned to 21.08.2013. However, since no instructions were received by him relating to Applicant No.1 as on 21.08.2013, again it was adjo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-drive had been retrieved in the presence of Shri Kamal Sharma, who in his statement had admitted to have maintained sales and purchase ledger in ‘Tally’ package giving fake names to such transactions. The Ld.A.R. has further submitted that when the data contained in the Pen-drive were compared with the entries in the statutory records of the Applicant No.1, it was found that finished goods had been clandestinely removed without payment of duty from 16.10.2005 to 25.06.2007. The Ld. A.R. brought to our notice the detail analysis of evidences and findings recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in the order. Further he has referred to the finding of the Ld. Commissioner relating to the involvement of Directors as recorded at para 28 of the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyee of the Applicant No.1 and on comparison the said data with the statutory register maintained by the Applicant in the factory, discrepancies were noticed relating to the production and clearance of finished goods. We need not at this stage analyze each piece of evidence recorded by the Ld. Commissioner to form a prima facie opinion whether there has been clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods during the period from 16.10.2005 to 25.06.2005 and evasion of duty to the tune of Rs.4.10 Crores. However, we are prima facie convinced that the data which has been retrieved from the possession of the employee of the Applicant and the said data has relevance to the statutory records maintained by the Applicant as there were common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
