9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corroborated by respective statements of the transporters and purchasers of the goods - Held that: - there is no scope to interfere with the confirmation of demand along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty against the assessee namely Kanchan Processors Pvt Ltd. However, in the face of the fact that assessee has been imposed with the equivalent penalty of ₹ 86,01,211/- and after considering the totality of facts and circumstances and taking a lenient view, the penalties imposed on the other appellants namely M/s Kanchan Wooltex Pvt Ltd, Shri Jayesh Bangar and Shri Nilesh Bangar appear to be on higher side. We, therefore, reduce these penalties in case of M/s Kanchan Wooltex Pvt Ltd to 20% of the demand confirmed against the assessee M/s Kanchan Processor Pvt Ltd, which comes to ₹ 17,20,242 /-; and in case of Shri Jayesh Bangar and Shri Nilesh Bangar, penalties are reduced to 10% of the demand confirmed against the assessee M/s Kanchan Processor Pvt Ltd, which thus comes to ₹ 8,60,121 /-each. - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants. - E/ 810, 1399-1402/2009-EX[DB] And E/911/2009-EX[DB] - A/52624-52628/2017-Ex(DB) - Dated:- 30-3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it made on 19.09.2003 by the Officers of DGCEI [Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Jaipur] certain quantity of the goods [1,83,842.80 Mtrs of PMMF] was found to be unaccounted which was said to be kept with the intent of clandestine removal without duty. The Revenue issued Show Cause Notice dated 16.3.2004, which was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original by Joint Commissioner. This order was appealed against before Commissioner, (Appeals)-II, who remanded the matter to the Original adjudicating authority. The Original authority namely Joint Commissioner readjudicated the matter vide Order-in-Original dated 4.12.2006 and against said Order the assessee namely Kanchan Processor Pvt ltd. and Shri Nilesh Bangar, filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal), Jaipur II, who passed the Order-in-Appeal no.252-253/ 2008 dated 19.12.2008. Against the said Order-in-Appeal dated 19.12.2008 the assessee, M/s Kanchan Processor Pvt Ltd is presently in appeal before the Tribunal, with the prayer that the said Order-in-Appeal be set aside. 4.2 On the other hand, Revenue in their cross Appeal No.[911/2009] prays that the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 19.12.2008 be set aside and Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Bangar did not challenge the seizure in respect of 24,637.96 mtrs of fabrics. The impugned order has reduced the penalty imposed on M/s Kanchan Processors (P) Ltd, the assessee from Rs Six Lakhs to ₹ 2 lakhs and has set aside the penalty of ₹ 3 lakhs imposed on Shri Nilesh Bangar by the Original adjudicating authority. The assessee namely M/s Kanchan Processor Pvt Ltd. has prayed that confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty and fine be set aside, whereas Revenue prays that Order-in-Appeal dated 19.12.2008 be set aside and Order-in-Original dated 4.12.2006 passed by Joint Commissioner be restored. However, after due consideration of facts and the submissions of both sides it appears that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reduced the penalties on the assessee from ₹ 6 lakhs to ₹ 2 lakhs and rightly set aside the penalty on Shri Nilesh Bangar, Director in the assessee company. However, these is no justification in the assessee s prayer to do away with the confiscation of the goods and the redemption fine imposed in case of confiscations, when the assessee M/s Kanchan Processor Pvt Ltd is unable to explain non-accountal of the goods, which have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Shri Nilesh Bangar and Sh. Jayesh Bangar respectively. Hence, these four appeals before the Tribunal. 10. After having carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions of both the sides, it appears that whole case is based on the sufficient evidences like private records stock verification, computer records etc which have been corroborated by respective statements of the transporters and purchasers of the goods. The evidences of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty is clearly evident from the documentary evidences found out during investigations by the Revenue. The statements which are corroborating the documentary evidences have not been retracted by the concerned persons. The documentary evidences confirming the clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty include various registers, private notepads, private diaries, private files. There is no substance and force in the submissions given by the ld. Advocate of the appellants in case of these four appeals. The appellants have not been able to counter the documentary evidences and corroborated statements, which support the Revenue s case and undoubtedly establish clandestine remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ics cleared .by. KPPL to KWPL is taken from the invoices issued by KPPL to KWPL during 22.08.2003 to 18.09.2003. 28 .. 29..The private records documents recovered from the godown of KWPL show date wise quality wise receipt of processed fabrics by KWPL from KPP and onward sale of processed fabrics by KWPL. As per these records, huge quantity of processed fabrics is established to have been removed without cover of invoice and without payment of duty by KPPL to KWPL. Sh. Jayesh Bangar has admitted that the said resumed records contain day to day receipt and dispatch of processed fabrics by KWPL. The entries in these records are corroborated by statutory invoices and by the statement of Sh. Jayesh Bangar, Director of KWPL and Sh. Sanjay Kabra, godown incharge of KWPL. The fact that entries in the Register (RUD 13) are correct is established in view of the position that as per Register, 210 pieces of fabrics through Vehicle number RSH 0155, 103 pieces through Vehicle No. RJ 0048 and 143 pieces through Vehicle No. RJ 06 1444 were received in the godown on 16.09.03 whereas, KPPL had issued only two invoices on 16.09.03 i.e. 4327 dated 16.09.03 and 4333 dated 16.09.03 in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the above discussions, there is no scope to interfere with the confirmation of demand along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty against the assessee namely Kanchan Processors Pvt Ltd. However, in the face of the fact that assessee has been imposed with the equivalent penalty of ₹ 86,01,211/- and after considering the totality of facts and circumstances and taking a lenient view, the penalties imposed on the other appellants namely M/s Kanchan Wooltex Pvt Ltd, Shri Jayesh Bangar and Shri Nilesh Bangar appear to be on higher side. We, therefore, reduce these penalties in case of M/s Kanchan Wooltex Pvt Ltd to 20% of the demand confirmed against the assessee M/s Kanchan Processor Pvt Ltd, which comes to ₹ 17,20,242 /-; and in case of Shri Jayesh Bangar and Shri Nilesh Bangar, penalties are reduced to 10% of the demand confirmed against the assessee M/s Kanchan Processor Pvt Ltd, which thus comes to ₹ 8,60,121 /-each. In other words, the penalties have been reduced in case of M/s Kanchan Wooltex Pvt Ltd to ₹ 17,20,242/- and in case of Shri Nilesh Bangar and Shri jayesh Bangar it comes to ₹ 8,60,121/- each. Consequenlty, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
