9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he minimum) whose name and address would be present on the said challans. In the absence of any corroborative evidences charge of clandestine removal cannot be upheld. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/967-969/2011-SM - A/10100-10102/2018 - Dated:- 12-1-2018 - M. V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) For the Appellant: Shri H.D. Dave (Advocate) For the Respondent: Shri. J. Nagori (A.R.) ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran These three appeals are directed against order-in appeal 63-69-2011-AHD-I-CE-MM-COMMR-A AHD dated 13.05.2015. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the case against M/s Subhash Metal Industries (Main appellant) was detected by department based on some intelligence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld the demands with interest and penalty on main appellant as well as other two appellants. Hence, these appeals. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant draws my attention to the entire case records and various statements recorded. It is his submission that the Revenue authorities have claimed in the impugned order that they had recovered duplicate set of invoices, delivery copies of the delivery challans vide which the goods were removed clandestinely but they have not produced a single statement of any of the purchasers of the statements of transporters to hold the charge of clandestine removal on the main appellant. He would than draw my attention to the punchnama which was recorded in the premises of Gujarat Roadways Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional statements of persons is not sufficient proof of clandestine removal. He would submit that in the case in hand, there is no other corroborative and only based on the statements of the individuals the demands have been worked out. 4. Ld. DR submits that First Appellate Authority has given details findings and he reiterates the same. 5. On careful consideration on the submissions made and perusal of the impugned order, I find that the First Appellate Authority has upheld the demand of ₹ 17,97,666/- as Central Excise duty on clandestinely removed goods, as also interest thereof and equivalent amount of penalty along with penalties on two individuals who are appellants in these appeals. While upholding the findings recorded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority despite visiting the Bombay office of the main appellant has not brought on record or the statements of the individuals who would have definitely known purchasers to whom they have sold the goods on cash basis. It is also noted from the recorded and the impugned order that appellant's plea that as to there is no excess purchase or consumption of exercise and movement of materials and in the absence of any purchasers of the clandestinely removed goods, demand cannot be confirmed is not been addressed at all by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order. 7. The law on this point of confirmation of the demand based upon the statements only without any corroborative evidences has been settled by the Hon ble High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
