9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of Central Excise and a shortage was found in the finished goods stocks i.e. Unlaminated Fabrics. That appellant admitted the said shortage and debited an amount of Rs. 4,72,278/- towards duty involved on such shortage of finished goods. That in the statement of Shri Dhanesh Jhunjhunwala, Director of the main appellant it was admitted that 28050.4 Kgs of HDP/PP unlaminated fabrics were cleared without payment of duty and without preparing any Central Excise documents. That the statement was recorded on 24.08.2008 and was immediately retracted on the next date by an affidavit dated 25.08.2008. It was his case that there is no documentary evidence other than the statement of the Director recorded by the department. That the another amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4,72,278/- towards shortage of finished goods is concerned, it was argued that after recording first statement of the Director on 24.08.2008, another statement dated 30.12.2010 of shri Dhanesh Jhunjhunwala, Director of the main appellant was also recorded and he has again confirmed the clandestine removal of the goods found short at the time of visit of the departmental officers. That in the statement dated 20.12.2010 also no mention of affidavit retracting the original statement has been made by the Director of the main appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these appeals is regarding duty demand on shortage of finished goods found in the factory premises of the appellant during visit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssible to the appellant. It is also observed from the case records that appellant has paid the entire amount of duty/ cenvat credit demanded in the show cause notice along with 25% of penalty. In view of the cenvat credit allowed with respect to education cess and SAD, the amount of remaining cenvat credit disallowed and quantum of 25% penalty is required to be reworked out. The same should be carried out by the adjudicating authority within a month from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the main appellant. 6. So far as imposition of penalty on Shri Dhanesh B. Jhunjhunwala is concerned, it is the argument of the appellant that penalty is excessive. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
