9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill not merit consideration. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of Revenue. - E/2463/2005 EX[SM] & E/Cross/38/2006 [SM] - A/54417/2015-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-9-2015 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Sudeep Singh, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Mishra, D.R. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of plywood, block board and flush Doors, falling under Chapter 44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The factory of the respondent was visited by the Preventive staff of the Central Excise Division on 02.09.2003. During the course of verification, the Department recovered some invoices containing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. As regards the duty demand in the adjudication order for ₹ 65,805/- on goods removed as per 5 Nos. of Biltis and demand of ₹ 1,13,792/- on the goods allegedly removed under katcha slips, the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) are that the Department has not produced any evidence to show clearance of the goods without payment of duty. Accordingly, the charges of clandestine removal and imposition of penalties on the appellant were also dropped in the impugned order. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, Revenue has filed this appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that the duty demand of ₹ 2,64,405/- confirmed in the adjudication order, was proposed in the show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1,13,792/-on the ground that the Department was not able to collect any evidence of having the goods been cleared without payment of duty and that the same is not corroborated by any statement of the buyer of the appellant or any transporter etc. In this context, I find that the adjudicating authority vide order dated 13.01.2005 has specifically recorded the statement dated 12.09.2003 of Shri Surinder Arora, accepting the fact of issuance of parallel invoices under the signature of Devendra Singh Chauhan. Since the statement dated 02.09.2003 and 12.09.2003 were never retracted by the appellant, the charges of clandestine removal, in my considered opinion, cannot be dropped. Accordingly, the impugned order dropping the duty demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
