9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversal however happened after a case was booked. In this regard we find the impugned order rightly confirmed the demand of reversal of cenvat credit. Confiscation of 89,800 Electrical Transformers which were seized from the premises of PEPL - Held that: - The said goods were offered for release on redemption on payment of fine of ₹ 90,000/-. Since the goods were the cleared without payment of duty, the same are rightly been confiscated. The fine imposed in such circumstances is justified. Penalty u/r 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that: - there is sufficient cause for imposition of such penalty and uphold the same. Personal penalty of ₹ 50,000/- each has been imposed on Shri R.N. Garodia and Shri Arun N. Garodia. We find that these persons had acted in violation of Central Excise Rules and Act. The penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on them is upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/2117 to 2119/06 - A/89775-89777/17/EB - Dated:- 28-9-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Deepak A. Chavan, Supdt. (A.R) For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty in lieu of confiscation without specifying how much of it is on M/s. Pixie Industries Ltd. and how much on the appellant-assessee as it is imposed in a consolidation fashion. It cannot be up held as imposed. (e) In the facts and circumstance of this case we find that a prima facie case has been made out to come to conclusion that the principals of natural justice have been violated by the adjudicator and the decision impugned herein as arrived is required to be set aside with directions that the notices should be heard and defence reply/materials considered and thereafter a finding arrived on the issues involved in this case. This appeal is therefore required to be allowed as remand to the Commissioner. (f) Since we have come to a finding that the matter requires de novo consideration we refrain from arriving at any findings on other grounds on merits as raised before us to demonstrate the manufacture of the said entities and also as regards time-bar and penalties in this case. All issues are kept therefore open left for the appellants to raise before the adjudicating authority who will arrive at the appropriate decision thereon. Earlier the demand was confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actured by Pixie Inds and sent to PEPL. Though the statements were retracted, Shri Arun Garodia in his statement dated 28.10.1991, which was not retracted, agreed and confirmed his earlier statement dated 15.08.1991. In this statements he agreed that the 89,800 pieces of IFTs were actually manufactured by Pixie and sent to PEPL; that the 21 winding machines belonging to them were given to Pixie Inds; that 10,45,600 capacitors were actually rejected being sub standard and returned to their original suppliers. 3.4. He argued that appellant claimed that they had received the goods for job work from PEPL under No. 214/86 dt. 25.3.1986. However, neither Pixie nor PEPL submitted any proof of having filed such an undertaking or at least an intimation to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commr. about the movement of inputs or raw materials of Electrical Transformers to Pixie Inds. Also no proof of receipt and issues of inputs of transformers maintained in Form RG23A Pt.I was submitted to substantiate their claim that the electrical transformers reflected in their production records and RT 12 returns were actually got manufactured from the appellant on the job work basis. 3.5. He pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re and the entire case has been made out on the basis of the said statements and the record of clearance of goods. When the statement dt. 15.8.1991 was recorded the appellant had already retracted their earlier statement dt. 6.8.1991 by affidavit dt. 7.8.1991 however it was not brought to the notice of the Revenue that the statement was retracted on 15.8.1991. Similarly on 20.9.1991 statement was again recorded where the appellants had retracted their statement dt. 6.8.1991 and 15.8.1991 by affidavit dt. 7.8.1991 and 16.8.199, but the same was not brought to notice of Revenue. From the above facts, it is apparent that the retraction was made strategically to use during the legal proceedings and was hidden from Revenue till 7.10.1991. In these circumstances we do not find any merit in the retraction made by the appellants and the said retraction is rejected. 4.1. The facts of the case are that the appellants have admittedly manufactured and cleared the goods to PEPL without any documents and without payment of Central Excise Duty the appellants have cleared without M/s. PEPL had paid the duty on the same and in support of said argument. They have submitted the RT 12 returns of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
