9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular are different. Out of two invoices, the invoice of earlier date was found to be containing bogus duty debit particulars. - The appellant's explanation that this practice had been adopted to facilitate their priority customers is not convincing, as during the same period in respect of other consignments i.e. in respect of 1318 consignments only one invoice has been issued and there was no such irregularity. In view of this, we hold that the impugned order confirming the duty demand of ₹ 2,05,53,961/- has to be upheld. Initially the goods had been cleared on payment of duty and on being found defective the same were returned by the customers for repair/reconditioning, and no credit of duty paid on the goods was taken by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any evidence of these persons dealing with the excisable goods in any manner in respect of which they had reason to believe that the same are liable for confiscation. Therefore, penalty on Shri Suresh Garg and Shri K.P.Chitrasenan is set aside. However, as regards imposition of penalty on Shri V.K.Mehta, Managing Director under Rule 209 is upheld. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/3892-3895/2004-EX - Final Order Nos. A/51556-51559/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) And S K Mohanty, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, AR ORDER Per: Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to filling of these appeals are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier date was found to be containing bogus duty payment details and on the basis of that invoice, the customers had taken credit. Similarly, during the same period, total 409 sales were made to non OEM customers. In respect of each sale, two invoices of the same number were issued on different dates, the invoice on the earlier date was containing bogus duty payment details. The investigating officers were of the view that the goods covered second invoice had been illicitly removed without payment of duty, as while two invoices bearing the same number had been issued in the name of the same customer but on different dates, but the duty had been paid only once. The duty demand of ₹ 2,05,53,961/- is on this basis. (2) In the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of removal with PLA debit entry number and date. However, debit entry shown in the loose copies of invoices were found to be different from the duty payment shown in the same invoice number which were-in the record of central excise department. 1.3 The above matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dt.30.4.2004, he confirmed the total duty demand of ₹ 2,15,68,150/- against the appellant alongwith interest on it under section 11AB and besides this, while imposing penalty of equal amount on them under section 11AC, imposed penalty of ₹ 20 lakh, ₹ 15 lakh and ₹ 5 lakh under Rule 209A on Shri V.k.Mehta, Managing Director, Shri Suresh Garg, Manager Finance and Shri K.P.Chitrasenan, Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cription of the goods but the date of invoices and duty debit particular are different. Out of two invoices, the invoice of earlier date was found to be containing bogus duty debit particulars. The department's allegation is that the goods cleared under such invoices containing bogus duty debit entry had been cleared without payment of duty. The appellant's explanation that this practice had been adopted to facilitate their priority customers is not convincing, as during the same period in respect of other consignments i.e. in respect of 1318 consignments only one invoice has been issued and there was no such irregularity. In view of this, we hold that the impugned order confirming the duty demand of ₹ 2,05,53,961/- has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. 7. As regard duty demand of ₹ 70,128/- is in respect of two consignments sold to Maruti Udyog Ltd. and two consignments sold to TELCO, triplicate and duplicate copies of the invoices had been signed by different persons, since there is no irregularity in respect of such clearance, in our view, the duty of ₹ 70,128/- is not justified and the same is set aside. 8. As regards the duty demand of ₹ 73,821/- it is in respect of certain loose pre-authenticated invoices duly signed by the representative of the assessee and duly incorporating date and time of removal with PLA debit entry number and date. However, debit entry shown in the loose copies of invoices were found to be different from the duty payment shown in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
