9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng pages were fairly admitted by the Ld. Advocate during his oral submissions - the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in so for as it relates to the demand of ₹ 5,32,322/- on account of these fraudulent invoices is upheld. Application for extended period for this demand is also upheld. he rest of the demand is mainly based on figures in the Batch Register and the statements of various company officials. While the appellants have pleaded that there was selective reading of the Batch Register and no finding have been given by the adjudicating authority on the statement of the chemist, I also find that the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the retraction of the statements extracted below, shows that there is element o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l numbers were affixed with manual numbering machine. It was also found that in between serial number 220 dt. 15.09.2001 and 221 dt. 19.09.2001 one set (4 copy) of invoice was left blank. It was further found that no sale of goods to their Depot was made by the factory in respect of goods covered by the following invoices of the said book, which were claimed to have been issued by their Depot. These invoices were resumed from the factory premises on 21.09.2001. The assessable value of goods cleared clandestinely on these invoices was calculated be ₹ 33,27,015/- involving Central Excise duty of ₹ 5,32,322/- as per details given in the table below : S. No. Invoice No./Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. 224 dt. 17.09.2001 1,37,250.00 M/s Safex Chemicals India Ltd., Giddarbaha (PB). 21,960.00 10. 225 dt. 19.09.2001 2,71,410.00 -do- 43,425.00 Total 33,27,015/- 5,32,322.00/- The statements of Sh. Mohinder Paul Bajar, Manager of the party, Sh. S.K. Jindal, Managing Director, Sh. Harish Chander, Chemist, Sh. Janardan Sharma Production Manager and Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Accountant and authorized signatory were recorded. A show cause notice was issued, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri. Ahmd) (v) CCE, Raipur Vs. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. - 2014 (308) ELT 154 (Tri. Del) (vi) CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Nexo Products (India) - 2014 (309) ELT 299 (Tri. Del) (vii) CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Nexo Products (India) - 015 (325) ELT 106 (Tri. Del) 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He also mentioned that Sh. Mohinder Pal Bajar continued with the appellant still 2006. He also stated that there was no retraction of any statements and no cross-examination was sought by the appellants of any witnesses. 5. Heard the parties and perused the records. 6. I find that there are two parts of the entire demand: (i) Demand of ₹ 5,32, 322/- relates to parallel invoices issued by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 16 wherein they have confirmed the statement of Sh. Mohinder Paul Bajar. Hence, the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in so for as it relates to the demand of ₹ 5,32,322/- on account of these fraudulent invoices is upheld. Application for extended period for this demand is also upheld. In respect of this part of demand, the penalty on the appellant of equivalent amount of ₹ 5,32,323/- under Section 11AC is also upheld. Prorata penalties of ₹ 20,000/- on Sh. Mohinder Paul Bajar, Manager and of ₹ 3,000/- on Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Accountant, are therefore imposable under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 for their role in these fraudulent clearances. 7. From the submissions made by the Ld. Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. In the de novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority will examine the contentions of the appellants particularly about selective reading of the Batch Register and the issue of retraction of the statements in the context of judicial pronouncements. 8. I also find that Sh. S.K. Jindal, Managing Director of the Company has expired on 13.10.2013. The appellants have submitted a copy of the death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Delhi. Accordingly, penalty proceedings against Sh. S.K. Jindal will abate. 9. In the result, (i) The demand of ₹ 5,32,322/- pertaining to parallel invoices is upheld along with interest. Equivalent penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
