9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o relevance when the concerned employees in their statement admitted to have knowledge about such incriminating evidence against the appellant. The parallel invoices not being found to be irrelevant and not liable to be discarded, exhibiting quantum of clearance mentioning the value thereon unaccounted, ld. adjudicating authority made correct evaluation of such evidence as unaccounted transactions on the relevant date and raised the demand thereon. - Adjudicating authority has worked out very clearly the loss of revenue with precision taking the aggregate value of 23 parallel invoices in the adjudication order. He has categorically recorded that the invoices were recovered from the factory and were prepared by employees of the appellant com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant failed to succeed when author of the slips confirmed that the goods appearing therein were being manufactured by appellant and duty thereon not paid. So far as penalty of ₹ 47,47,307/- imposed on the appellant M/s. Agmotex Ltd. is concerned, looking into the evasion caused making clearances unaccounted through parallel invoices, penalty of ₹ 18,17,159/- is confirmed and penalty of ₹ 29,30,148/- related to unaccounted clearance as was established by incriminating slips is also confirmed for no evidence came to record to prove irrelevancy thereof. Accordingly, aggregate penalty of ₹ 47,47,307/- is confirmed. - Decided against assesse. In adjudication, Shri Shishir Agarwal, Director and Rajiv Sharma, Manag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of ₹ 29,30,148/- related to the demand arose out of clandestine removal of goods alleged to have been made suppressing production as found from the slips recovered in the course of search. Further, penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Shishir Agarwal, Director and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Rajiv Sharma, Manager. Both the penalties were imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 . 2. When the investigating team made a visit to the factory of the appellant on 20.09.2002, they recovered certain invoices therefrom which disclosed the goods alleged to have been cleared by the appellant clandestinely. That resulted in raising demand of ₹ 18,17,159/-. Similarly, certain slips were fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued the Show Cause Notice, he adjudicated the demand, which is contrary to law. (ii) The documents recovered remained disputed and the originals were not produced before the appellant. (iii) The opinion of the hand-writing experts placed by the appellant was discarded. (iv) The slips appearing at page 181 and page 238 to 262 has no relevance to the demand raised during the adjudication is arbitrary. 6.1 On the other hand, ld. JCDR submitted that parallel invoices were recovered from the factory of the appellant and the person from whose custody those were recovered did not disown the same for which ld. adjudicating authority has rightly raised the demand on the basis of 23 parallel invoices with the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case made the adjudication resulting in demand of ₹ 29,30,148/- on the count of detected slips. 7. Heard both sides and perused the record. 8.1 So far as recovery of parallel invoices are concerned, that was undisputed to be belonging to the appellant. The pulpable plea of different hand-writing over the documents was not proved. When hand-writing experts known to law opined against the appellant, there was no necessity to rely upon any other expert, who was not recognised by law. Therefore, appellant s plea of hand-writing experts opinion was not considered has no relevance when the concerned employees in their statement admitted to have knowledge about such incriminating evidence against the appellant. The parallel invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any evidence to the contrary. The appellant could not repel the allegation of Revenue that such slips resulted in evasion of duty to the above extent. Nothing could be either proved to demonstrate that those slips were not recovered from the factory nor there was absence of live link between the slips and the appellant. Also, contents of the slips showing the nature of goods manufactured by the appellants could not be ruled out. Investigation found that the slips were intimately connected with the activities of appellant and contents thereof demonstrating the clearances of excisable goods not finding place in the production register of appellant could not be ruled out by appellant. 8.3 It was plain and simple case of deliberate omission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
