9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and time of removal, except few invoices including invoice No.59 dt. 24.2.2004 which did not indicate at the time of removal clearly shows malafide intention on the part of the appellant for using the same invoice for multiple clearance. Since Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken the shortage quantity noticed in the factory premises and the seized quantity together and re-determined duty demand only on balance quantity, confiscation and the revised duty demand of duty and imposition of redemption fine is justified and liable to be upheld. appellant is eligible for the reduced penalty of 25% as per Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/980/2005 - FINAL ORDER No.40563/2014 - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the order, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority vide impugned order held that the quantity found shortage at the factory premises is inclusive of seized quantity and since confiscation of such seized quantity is already justified to the remaining quantity of 10,942 mtrs. of grey fabrics and directed the adjudication authority to re-quantify the duty liability on the revised quantity and to determine the reduced penalty proportionately equivalent to the revised duty. Hence the present appeal. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the department has not conclusively proved clandestine removal of goods which was seized when the vehicle was intercepted by the departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that show cause notice has clearly brought out clandestine removal and submits that seizure mahazar, detention mahazar, statement recorded from the partner of the appellant company, the sales invoices and the stock register recovered from the appellant's premises on 25.2.2004 clearly proved clandestine removal as well as shortage of goods in the factory premises. He submits that unsigned copy of RG.1 Register produced by the learned advocate cannot be relied upon whereas the stock register maintained by the appellant for the period 17.10.2003 to 24.2.2004 reveals that there was a quantity of 2,08,472.70 mtrs. of goods in stock whereas the physical verification of stock available in the unit was only 1,58,641.70 mtrs. resulting in short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal adjudicating authority holds good. 7. From the above, it is seen that duty liability has been reduced to ₹ 18,328/-and consequently penalty also reduced to ₹ 18,328/-. The very fact that the when the goods were intercepted from the transporter there is no valid duty paying documents and this proves beyond doubt that the goods were clandestinely removed without payment of duty. The appellant failed to justify the invoice No.59 dt. 24.2.2004 which relates to the goods intercepted by the officers. As clearly held by the lower authorities, when all the invoices clearly mentioned the date and time of removal, except few invoices including invoice No.59 dt. 24.2.2004 which did not indicate at the time of removal clearly show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
