9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowhere recorded in any of the records of the appellant nor any document was issued. Therefore, the removal of the goods will be treated as clandestine removal without payment of excise duty - demand upheld. Imposition of penalty u/r 26 on employees of the appellant company - Held that: - since the goods were cleared with their knowledge and they have malafide intention, not followed the procedure, no account for the removal in the books, penalty u/r 26 were correctly imposed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/4151 to 4154/05 & E/21/06 - A/85912-85916/17/EB - Dated:- 16-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Nikhil Rungta, Advocate for the appellant Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The adjudicating authority passed the following order:- In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, I hereby confirm the demand of ₹ 8,51,533/- raised vide SCN bearing no. V/Adj(SCN)15-332/M-VII/2002-03 dated 21.11.2002 and order for its recovery under Section 11A of C.Excise Act, 1944. Since M/s. Kopran has debited the amount of ₹ 77,790/- (Rs. Seventy seven thousand seven hundred ninety only) reversed by them vide entry no. 122 dt.1/6/02 in their CENVAT account, I appropriate the same against the amount so confirmed. I further order for confiscation of the goods under seizure as per panchanama dt. 22/502 under Rule 25 of the C.Excise Rules, 2002. However, I further order that same are allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to a letter dated 06.12.2001 written to DPL regarding sending of material for reprocessing. He submits that with this letter it is clear that the goods were sent for job work. Accordingly, the demand confirmed is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides. We find that the claim of the appellant is that the goods admittedly supplied to DPL was for job work. However, it was observed that neither any proper challan was issued mentioning the provision of job work nor any entry was made in the records of the appellant. The goods are mainly finished good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
