9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved from the factory - Held that: - the onus lies on the Department to prove clandestine removal of goods, which has not been satisfactorily discharged - Since the authorized signatory nowhere in his statement had admitted about the clandestine removal of goods, the charges cannot be levelled solely on the basis of shortage detected by the officers during the course of verification of the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by them without payment of duty of excise and without maintaining proper records. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide order dated 30-3-2004 confirming the demand of duty of ₹ 1,65,339/- along with interest and imposing equal amount of penalty. In appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 9-7-2004 has allowed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has only admitted shortage of the finished goods and nowhere in the statement he has stated that the finished goods found short, have been clandestinely removed from the factory. He further submitted that no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the goods have been clandestinely removed from the factory. To corroborate his stand that duty demand cannot be sustained in the absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... velled solely on the basis of shortage detected by the officers during the course of verification of the documents. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the onus lies on the Department to prove clandestine removal of goods, which has not been satisfactorily discharged. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
