9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seen that in addition to proceedings for confiscation of cash, detailed investigation into the alleged clandestine clearances by the appellant has been undertaken which has culminated into a separate proceeding resulting in demand of duty and imposition of penalty. I also find that this matter stands remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for denovo decision in the light of the directions by this Tribunal in appellant's own case reported in [2015 (10) TMI 2351 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Clandestine clearance of cement - Demand and imposition of penalty - Held that:- it would be appropriate and necessary that the above and this appeal are considered and decided together. For this purpose, I consider it necessary to remand the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was ordered to be confiscated by the Original Adjudicating Authority under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 readwith Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, treating the same as sale proceeds of clandestinely removed excisable goods. The Appellate Authority, vide the impugned order, upheld the confiscation and hence the present appeal. In the second part of the proceedings, demand of duty as well as imposition of penalties was made in separate Orders-in-Original No. 15/ Commr/CEX/IND/2010 dated 05/05/2010 and 17/Commr/CEX/ IND/2010 dated 07/05/2010 both passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Indore. The appeal against the said order was decided by this Tribunal and the matter was remanded vide order No. A/52415-52426/2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel Ropes vs. CCE (Adj.), Mumbai reported in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 591 (Tri. Mumbai), in which the Tribunal has held that confessional statement, if given voluntarily, can form the sole basis for confirmation of demand. 5. From the records, I find that unaccounted cash to the extent of ₹ 11,26,500/- was seized from the residential premises of three Directors of the appellant. The seizure was made on the reasonable belief that this cash pertains to the sale proceeds of clandestinely removed goods. I also find that the Directors have admitted in their voluntarily statements that the seized cash was the sale proceeds of clandestinely cleared goods. It is seen that in addition to proceedings for confiscation of cash, detailed investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
