9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ‘India Gold’ gutkha without obtaining any central excise registration - Held that: - the Commissioner during the adjudication proceedings has not taken into account the submissions of the appellants that there have not been direct or indirect corroborative evidences in the form of purchase/utilisation/consumption of raw materials, sale of finished goods and so on - also, appellants were not given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also been imposed on the appellant M/s Om Fragrances. The impugned order also imposes penalty of ₹ 25 lakhs on Shri Sumit Agarwal, partner and penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs on Shri Rajeev Gupta, Supervisor. 2. The appellants have been represented by ld. Advocate Shri Prabhat Kumar and Revenue has been represented by ld. AR Shri G.R. Singh. 3. Based on appeal memorandum and the written submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stine receipt of raw material and manufacture of the goods. (c) No record of sale of gutkha was found. (d) There is no recovery of gutkha with brand name 'India Gold' from the market. (e) No dealers have been identified to whom goods were sold. (f) There was no evidence of any transportation of the so called clandestinely manufactured gutkha. (g) No names of any transporters have been indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions are that the appellant assessee evaded duty of ₹ 96,47,361/-by way of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods viz. gutkha of 'India gold' brand. The main evidence against the appellants are Panchnama dated 4.8.2008; statements of Shri Sumit Agarwal, partner and Shri Rajeev Gupta, Supervisor and Shri Jinesh Jain, proprietor of Jain Enerprises. 5. After careful consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
