9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant. - E/3865/2005 - Final Order No. A/10/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 3-12-2009 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri J.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the impugned order wherein duty demand of ₹ 41,20,434/- along with interest as applicable has been confirmed. Equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 has also been confirmed on the ground of clandestine removal of excisable goods through parallel set of invoices. 2. The facts of the case are that, appellants are engaged in the manufacture of News Print/Writing paper and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es effected against this set of invoices. It indicates that the appellants had maintained and utilized parallel or duplicate set of invoices with mala fide intention of clearing excisable goods without payment of duty and that they had suppressed the clearance of excisable goods from the factory by not accounting the same in the statutory records. Show cause notice was issued demanding duty, interest and penalty. A personal penalty was also imposed on the Director of the appellant company. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), demand of duty, interest and penalty against the appellant company was confirmed but penalty on Director was dropped. Appellant company is in appeal before us. 3. Shri P.K. Mittal, learned advocate appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at later date. He filed statements which confirm the description of goods along with truck numbers mentioned against each invoice in both sets of invoices. He further filed statement of C form received from their customers against which the sales were affected by the appellant company, against the duty paid invoices. Ld. Advocate further submits that except the statement to the extent that the invoice found in their office on which excise duty was not paid, no other statement or independent co-relative statement was procured by the Department and they have not found any inculpatory document against the appellants, which may lead to clandestine removal of the goods. He submitted that no excessive consumption of fuel, electricity etc. was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing adverse demonstrated in the Order in Original or by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. To support his contention that demand against appellants is not sustainable merely on the basis of statement of one of the employee without corroborative of any independent evidence, during the course of investigation. He placed reliance on following decisions :- (a) Kalyan Glaze Tiles - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 417 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (b) Sri Lakshmi Associates - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 418 (Tri.-Chennai) (c) Indo Green Textile Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 343 (Tri.-Mum.) (d) Indian Rayon and Inds. Ltd. - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 358 (Tri.-Bang.) (e) K. Rajagopal - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 128 (Tri.- Chennai) (f) Eicher Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larify as to why this diary contained the nos. of these invoices. 17. It was also seen during the scrutiny of party-wise ledger seized from the factory of the notice company that they had cleared various quantity of paper, against certain bills or challans which were not available in seized records but entries of which were found in said ledgers and which differed in respect of date of issue of regular invoices. Shri Virendranath Dixit, Accounts officer of the notice company in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 24-7-1997 admitted that the party-wise ledgers seized from the factory did not reflect the entire transaction between the factory and the purchases and that transactions relating to payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by the parties. We found that during the course of arguments, learned advocate submitted that no cross-examination of the employees was permitted. Moreover, the department has not verified the sales affected by the non-duty paid invoices from the buyers of the appellants, which could have been made easily. Moreover, Department did not bothered to verify the fact of the removal of the goods from the transporters which could have been done in an easy way. Merely a statement by the employee, which has been duly explained by the appellants during the course of his reply to the show cause notice, was not considered by the lower authorities. It is further found that no investigation was done about the productions made in the appellant s fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
