9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was found. On being asked, appellant stated that amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- belonged to his friend Shri. Pawan Drolia and the remaining cash of Rs. 6,30,000/- belonged to him, his mother and his wife and had kept in office for business transaction. Further investigation was carried out statements were recorded under Section 14 wherein he stated that the said cash was from the proceedings of the excisable goods cleared without payment of duty and without cover of central excise invoice. He further submits that cash of Rs. 6,66,430 were received on 24-3-2005 from M/s. Vikas Steel Traders as payment for sales of 23.970 M.T. CTD bars to them without payment of duty. The said cash is not reflected in the financial records of M/s. Balaji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the appellant cannot be conclusively said to have received as proceed against clandestine removal of goods, therefore cash seized from the office of the appellant is not liable for confiscation consequently no penalty under Rule 26/27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh Vs. Patran Pipes (P) Ltd [2010(261)ELT 1173(Tri. Del.)] (b) Bhagwan R. Daswani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai[2010(262)ELT 822(Tri. Mum)] 3. On the other hand, Shri. M.P. Dixit, Ld Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that appellant in his confessional statements accepted that cash lying with h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Patran Pipes (P) Ltd (supra) this Tribunal held that in absence of evidence showing seized money having direct nexus with clandestine removal, there cannot be assumption and presumption, surmise or suspicion to hold against asesseee. In case of Bhagwan R. Daswani(supra) it was held that sale proceed of goods cleared without payment of duty, incomplete and improper investigation, burden of showing that cash recovered is sale proceeds of goods cleared without payment of duty is on the Revenue. In the facts of present case also firstly department has not made out any case of clandestine removal therefore burden that cash lying with the appellant is towards proceed of clandestinely removal of goods was not discharged by the reveneu. As per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
