9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords maintained by the Applicant as there were common transactions between the data found in the Pen-drive and also entries in the statutory records - it is a question of appreciation of evidence and not a case of no evidence – assessee directed to deposit 50% of the total amount of duty to be submitted as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – partial stay granted. - Appeal Nos.Ex.Ap.245-247/11 - ORDER NO.SO/71180-71182/2013 - Dated:- 18-9-2013 - Dr. D.M. Misra and Dr. I.P. Lal, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K.K.Acharya, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. Chakraborty, A.C.(A.R.) ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra; 1. These applications are filed by the Applicant namely Ms. Auro Ispat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat these Directors had at no point of time accepted/admitted clearance of goods from the factory of Applicant No.1, during the relevant period, without payment of duty. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that since no evidence has been adduced and their alleged role had been established, therefore, personal penalty on the Directors cannot be imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in view of series of judgements of this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the officers of DGCEI visited the factory of Applicant No.1 on 27.06.2007. During the course of search, the officers have recovered copy of parallel invoices and incriminating documents indicating suppression of production, clandestine removal of fini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut they failed to appear before this Tribunal on all occasions. The Ld. Advocate had submitted that the factory had been sold but no evidence has been brought on record. In these circumstances, we therefore proceeded to hear the Ld. A.R. for Revenue on the evidences against the Applicant No.1. The allegation of the Revenue against the Applicant No.1 is that during the relevant period, i.e. from 16.10.2005 to 25.06.2007, they have indulged in clandestine manufacture and clearance of MS ingots from their factory. The confirmation of the demand against the Applicants based on evidences collected from various sources by the Department after carrying out search and seizure of the premises. We find that the present case revolves around retrieval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the course of investigation. We also find that the Directors cannot absolve themselves at this stage pleading that there was no involvement of theirs in the clandestine manufacture and removal of MS ingots from their factory during the period 16.12.2005 to 25.06.2005. In these circumstances we direct the Applicant No.2 3 to deposit Rs.1.00 Lakh each within a period of eight weeks from today. On deposit of the 50% of duty after deducting Rs.30.00 Lakhs by Applicant No.1, Rs.1.00 Lakh each by Applicant No.2 3, pre-deposit of balance dues adjudged against Applicant No.1, 2 3 would be waived and recovery thereof be stayed during pendency of the Appeal. Failure to deposit the said amount would result in dismissal of the respective Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
