9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on the basis of ‘kachchi parchies’. Meaning thereby, that no vouchers were given to him. Entries made in the ‘kachchi parchies’ stand fully corroborated with the statements of the Proprietor recorded on various dates and the same were not retracted. Not only that, further corroboration comes from the statement of the buyers as also from the driver of the assessee-Appellants’ Company who used to transport the goods under the cover of ‘kachchi parchies’. All the evidences are sufficient to arrive at a finding that the assessee-Appellants were, admittedly, indulged in the clandestine removal of the goods. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee. - Excise Appeal Nos. 57708 & 57710 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER NO. 56424-56425/2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d nothing to do with the loose slips. According to him, the loose slips were belonging to his brother. Regarding brand name of other persons, he submits that the Department had failed to identify the owner of the brand name and, therefore, not discharged the burden to prove. It is also his submission that the assessee-Appellants were using the brand names of another person and the brand names were always supplied by the customers. In other words, whatever customers say, they just brand on it. To support his arguments, he relied on the following case laws : (i) CCE, Ahmedabad-II vs Gujarat Healthcare , 2010 (259) ELT 140 (Tri.-Ahmd); (ii) Ample Industries vs CCE, Rajkot , 2007 (218) ELT 456 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (iii) CCE, Cochin vs Geo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (CTO) of Government of Rajasthan conducted a survey of the noticee on 29.11.2010 and recovered various incriminating records. On the basis of these documents, the Central Excise Department has made out a case where duty demand of ₹ 1,93,67,191/- was confirmed against the assessee-Appellants and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11-AC of the Act. In addition, various seized goods stand confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 10,00,000/-. Further, penalty of ₹ 2 lacs was imposed on Shri Ravish Chandra Gupta, Proprietor of Power Control Corporation, under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. 7. On 06.07.2011, the factory premises was searched by the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that he used to receive payment from the parties by deducting the value of raw material supplied by them from the total value of the cables manufactured. He admitted that details mentioned in the kachchi partiches have not been accounted for by him in the statutory records. 8. In follow up action, the business premises of various buyers were searched and statements of their representatives was recorded wherein all of them admitted having got the power cables manufactured with their brand name and having received the same from the assessee-Appellants. All statements have already been reproduced in the impugned order along with the details. 9. Statement of Shri Sushil Singh, driver of Mahindra Maximo (loading vehicle) was recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
