9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal. 2. Brief fact of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of LPG cylinders, falling under Chapter Heading No.7311.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of manufacture of cylinders, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved that the appellant had removed steel scrap from its factory without payment of Central Excise Duty and without issuing the excisable invoices. The show cause notice issued in this regard, culminated in the adjudication order dated 18.08.2008, wherein Central Excise Duty demand of Rs. 19,22,640/- alongwith interest was confirmed against the appellant. Further, an amount of Rs. 3,571/- was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty. He also submits that the Department proceeded against the appellant on the basis of the private ledger seized from Shri Ashish Mittal, whereas while adjudicating the show cause notice, the original authority has dropped the proposal for imposition of penalty on him on the ground that there was no cogent and tangible evidence of his indulgence in the clandestine removal of the goods. Thus, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the findings recorded in the adjudication order to hold that goods in respect of the entries made in the ledger were removed clandestinely from the factory. Since, the onus lies with the Department to prove clandestine removal of the goods has not been substantiated with any iota of evidence, I am of the view that the duty demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the appellant cannot be su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
