9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a scope to explain the shortages. By a letter dated 16.09.2006 appellant, within a week s time of Panchnama, explained the department that there was no shortages as several materials are lying spread over everywhere in the factory premises, which are rejected as well as returned goods. No verification was made during investigation with respect to the claim made by the appellant. During subsequent investigation conducted, by recording statement dated 11.08.2009 of Shri S.R.B. Nair, Chief Operating Officer and Director of the appellant, also explains the case of the appellant that there was no shortage of finished goods. - there is even no confessional statement of the appellant, because the very first statement at 12.09.2006 convey that duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inished goods was found. Shri Rajesh R. Patel, Excise Executive and Authorised Signatory of the appellant in his statement dated 12.09.2006 stated that shortages found may be on accounting error with no clandestine intention to evade payment of duty and that he is not able to explain the shortages. It was also submitted that appellant is reversing the duty voluntarily in good faith with a scope to explain the same. 2. Appeal No. E/326/2010 has been filed by the appellant with respect to refund of ₹ 11,40,458/- paid during investigation. The said refund claim was returned to the appellant as premature as per order dated 09.09.2009 of the adjudicating authority. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 13.11.2009, issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the statement given regarding shortages of finished goods and later explanation given has to be considered as an afterthought. He relied upon the case law of Majestic Auto Limited vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2004 (172) ELT 391 (Tri. Del.)]. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether the case of clandestine removal can be held to be established on the basis of statement dated 12.09.2006 of Shri Rajesh R. Patel, Excise Executive and Authorised Signatory of the appellant. There is no other corroborative evidence or statement given by any other person to substantiate that there was any clandestine removal on the part of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of Majestic Auto Limited vs. CCE, Ghaziabad where the explanation was offered after two months and after physical verification by the department, was held to be inadmissible. In the case relied upon by the AR, the commodity involved was two wheelers, Scooters and Mopeds, and the quantity of which was easily verifiable during stock taking. On the other hand, in the present case, the shortages were alleged to be that of chemicals when the shortage where it was not found admitted but a statement was given that the shortage will be explained later and the same was explained by the appellant during subsequent investigations. In the absence of any other independent corroborative evidence and after perusal of the case records it is to be hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
