9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the appellants against the confirmation of the duty demand on the 2nd appellant and penalties on both the appellants on account of clandestine removal of the goods. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of survey conducted by the Income Tax Department on 11/12-10-2002 under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 it was observed that a diary was maintained by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deepak B. Patel was recorded and the appellant firm was asked to pay central excise duty on the said amount of ₹ 40 lakhs. Demand of penalties was confirmed on both the appellants by the authorities below. Aggrieved from the order, the appellants are before me. 3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that it is a case where the appellants has categorically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Hitachi Appliance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi - 2009 (243) E.L.T. 618 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein this Tribunal has held that clandestine removal is a serious offence, to be established by proper evidence. The confessional statement which is not retracted but is also not accepting the clandestine removal, cannot be charged for clandestine removal. Accordingly, the impugned order is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order is to be sustained. 5. Heard both sides. 6. On careful examination of the submissions by both the sides and records, I find that in this case the cash has been introduced by the appellant firm through capital account of their partner and it has been categorically denied by Shri Deepak Patel in his statement that they have never removed any inputs, semi-finished goods, and finished good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
