9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty from Rs. 1,56,010/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand and Ten only) to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) upon respondent No. I and also set aside penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) imposed upon Shri Abhay Agrawal, respondent No. 2, Director of the Company. The respondent No. 1 filed the Cross Objection against the impugned order, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty of Rs. 8340.00, imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 6000.00 and penalty of Rs. 5000.00. 2. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. It appears from record that on 27-12-06 the respondents requested for adjournment as the learned advocate was unwell and adjourn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Jalpur Golden Transport who confirmed the transportation of the said goods to M/s. Gupta Chemicals from the factory of the respondent No. 1. The said officers further visited the premises of M/s. Gupta Chemicals on 21st August 1998: During the course of search, 18 drums of DBP in 5250 Kgs. were found, which were received without any bills/invoice. Shri Bharat Bhushan of M/s. Gupta Chemicals in his statement dated 30th November 1998 stated that Shri Abhay Agarwal respondent No. 2 herein took the order from him and it was agreed that he would dispatch the consignment and after its receipt, the papers accompanying the goods would be destroyed. He also stated that under the impression of receiving the goods at lower cost they had agreed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents merely placed some invoices which were issued to other local parties and not in the name of M/s. Gupta Chemicals. The respondents did not place any evidence in support of their contention that no goods were cleared in respect of the said invoices. So, the adjudicating authority rightly observed that the goods were cleared to M/s. Gupta Chemicals without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the department has not established that they had cleared two different goods namely one set of the goods to the local parties in whose name invokes were raised and another set of goods to M/s. Gupta Chemicals, New Delhi without payment of duty and hence the demand of duty is incorrect. I find, that the finding of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
