9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited the appellant's factory and recovered certain records and documents, containing three files of loose papers, challans and packing slips. They have recorded statements of the Director and employees of the appellant Company and the four merchant manufacturers, who supplied the grey fabrics. 2. A show cause notice dated 10.11.2004 was issued proposing demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 31,06,075/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty. The adjudicating authority modified the demand of duty and reduced to Rs. 17,39,400/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. It has also imposed penalties on the co-noticees. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed on the Director of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e suppliers, excise clerk, programme supervisor and the Director of the appellant Company, who admitted clandestine removal of the goods and the same are corroborated with the Files recovered from the appellant. He further submits that none of the noticees had retracted statements at any point of time. He submits that cum-duty benefit should not be extended as they have not issued invoices, the statement of Shri Rajkumar Somani, Director of the appellant Company is corroborated with this fact. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Central Excise officers during the visit of appellant's factory recovered three Files containing various documents. It is seen that representatives of the appellant Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show and establish that the goods were dispatched before the date of search on 10.7.2004. Thirdly, the appellant had sufficient opportunity to put up their claim. If the claim is indeed true, the appellant ought to explain what prevented them from placing the facts at the time of various statements of the Director. The plea of the appellant, in this regards, fails. 6. The appellant has taken another plea that quantity of processed fabrics has been ascertained taking wastages of 10% as against 18-22% reflected in invoices. These being polyester fabrics, it is common knowledge that shrinkages in such fabrics are nominal. The appellant are claiming shrinkage of 18% - 22% based on sample invoice and not as wastage approved by a technical agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
