9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause which was brought is Section 38A is effective from 11-5-2001 therefore there was no machinery provisions of sub rule (2) of 173Q on the date of issue of SCN, therefore confiscation of land, building etc is illegal accordingly, redemption find of ₹ 1 lacs is hereby dropped - As regard the redemption fine of ₹ 89,206/- on the confiscation goods valued of ₹ 3,56,825/-, I find that goods valued at ₹ 1,40,819/- were seized at premises of M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd at that stage, the goods did not belong to appellant therefore redemption fine cannot be demanded from appellant, however some redemption fine is warranted. Taking into consideration value of the goods seized at premises of M/s. Volent Textile Mills L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls Ltd. Various statements were recorded from the persons of Jam Mills as well as representative of M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd wherein the representative of M/s. Volent Textile admitted the receipt of the goods from the Jam Mills. Persons from the appellant though initially admitted but subsequently retracted their statement, however one person i.e. Shri. J.M. Adhiya, General Manager of Jam Mills has admitted that 10 MT of yarn was supplied to M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued proposing the demand of duty on alleged clandestine removal from the appellant to the M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd and also proposed confiscation of the goods intercepted at M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd and the stock of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpose a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on Shri. Shankar Hanmant Anandkar under Rule 209A. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order-in-Original dated 30-11-2000, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). In the impugned order he upheld the demand of duty, penalties imposed against M/s. Jam Mills and M/s. Volent Textile, also upheld the confiscation of the goods and land and building. As regard the personal penalty, Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of penalty on Shri. Bhrahmadeo Goving Jagtap and Shri. Suresh Dnyaneshwar Bonge. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner(Appeals) M/s. Jam Mills filed present appeal. 2. Shri. D.H. Nadkarni, Ld. Counsel for the appellant su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted their statement by filing affidavit therefore there is no conclusive evidence that the goods supplied by the appellant which was found the factory of M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd. He submits that the admission made by the persons of M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd cannot be used for charge of clandestine removal against the appellant therefore demand of 18221.73 kgs of P.C. Yarn is not sustainable. He placed reliance in case of Sunil Kumar Gupta[2015(315) ELT A89(All.H.C.) and Vikram Cement Ltd. [2012(286) ELT 615(T)]. As regard the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 1 Lacs, he submits that confiscation was made under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the show cause notice was issued on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extile Mills Ltd it is accepted fact that appellant were indulged in the clandestine removal of the goods to M/s. Volent for the past also. This charge gets corroborated with the trucks lying in the factory of the M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd was intercepted therefore the demand of duty was rightly confirmed. As regard the duty on the short found stock the same could not be explained by the appellant therefore the duty on shortages is also legal particularly for the reason that it is established that appellant is indulged in clandestine removal of the goods.. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. I find that out of total demand of ₹ 4,24,373. 39 the duty amount of ₹ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be of great help to the appellant for the reason that it is not the sole statements which were relied upon for fastening the duty liability but it was corroborated with the statements of person of M/s. Volent Textile Mills Ltd also. It is also not disputed that as per the seizer of two trucks loaded with the goods supplied by the appellant to M/s.Volent Textile Mills was clandestinely removed therefore taking into consideration all these facts and circumstantial evidences, I am of the clear view that duty liability on 18221.73 kgs of P.C. Yarn on the past clearance are correct and legal therefore I uphold the duty demand on this quantity. As regard the confiscation of land building etc. I agree with the Ld. Counsel s submissions that sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
