9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o, the role of M/s.Mehra Copy House becomes clear that they were indulged in clandestine activity - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/1047/2008 - Final Order No. 62017/2017 - Dated:- 18-10-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Harvinder Singh, AR ORDER Per : Devender Singh The brief facts of the case are that M/s.Rana Mahindra Papers Limited is manufacturer of paper and paper products, who were visited by the Central Excise officers on 4.3.2005 and during search, unaccounted stock of paper weighing about 28 MTs was found. Private records in the form of diaries, parallel invoices, register in finishing ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were issued to M/s.Rana Mahindra Papers Limited and Mehra Copy House and others demanding duty of ₹ 61,05,196/- along with interest and proposing penalty against various persons including M/s.Mehra Copy House, the present appellant. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of ₹ 61,05,196/- was confirmed alongwith penalties on various persons for their role in the systematic evasion of Central Excise duty. The appellant before me was also imposed personal penalty of ₹ 89,615/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Ld.Advocate for the appellant fairly submits that on merits, the appellant have no case at all. He pleaded for a lenient view in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er which they had received from the Noticee No. 1; that the above said amount was deposited in ICIC Bank as per telephonic directions of Sh. Prabhdeep Singh Rana, the Director of the Noticee No. 1; that that earlier they had been making payments in cash only; that he was shown original for buyer copies of invoice No. 35 dt. 15.04.2004, 59 dt. 30.04.2004, 182 dt. 16.07.2004 and 371 dt. 26.10.2004 under which Noticee No. 1 had sent 6.7149 MT, 6.164MT, 4.428 MT and 5.7715MT paper respectively to his firm; that he had received all the four consignments from the noticee No. 1, that all the above said consignments of writing printing paper were delivered to them on the duplicate for transport copies of the above said invoices and the payments o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts in their books of account and he was afraid, therefore, he denied receipt of any goods from the Noticee No. 1 in his above said statement dt. 10.03.2005; that when he was confronted with documentary evidence, he had admitted the receipt of four consignments of writing printing paper from the Noticee No. 1 and the fact of billed as well as unbilled payments having been made against the said receipts in the manner explained above. Therefore, M/s Mehra Copy House, Amritsar had paid the billed amount of ₹ 4,18,412/- through cash and an unbilled amount of ₹ 1,30,700/- (Rs. 60,700/- in bank + ₹ 70,000/- in cash) against the four consignments of writing printing paper received by them from the Noticee No. 1 on the above sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
