9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having been retracted by the said person, the averment made therein cannot be legally sustainable for initiation of proceedings against the appellant for confiscation of the goods and for imposition of penalties. Also, the statement recorded from Shri Jai Prakash Chaudhary on 24.12.2008, was immediately retracted on 26.12.2008, which has not been discussed or addressed in the impugned order. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal Nos.76552-76554/14 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75094-75097/2018 - Dated:- 19-1-2018 - Shri S. K. Mohanty, Hon ble Judicial Member Dr.Samir Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate Shri A.Biswas, Adv. for the Appellant Shri D. Haldar, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri S. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow-cause notices to Shri Jai Prakash Choudhary and Shri Kapil Deo Choudhary, Directors of the Appellant Company, seeking imposition of penalties. Show cause notices issued to the appellants, were adjudicated vide impugned order dated 02.04.2013. Vide the impugned order; the seized goods of M.S. Bars/TMT Bars and M.S.Flats were confiscated, with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 20.00 lakhs. Further, a penalty of ₹ 8.00 lakhs was imposed on the Appellant Company under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Besides, the impugned order has also imposed penalties of ₹ 2.50 lakhs each on the appellant, Shri Jai Prakash Choudhary and Shri Kapil Deo Choudhary, Directors of the Appellant Company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms C.Excise, Visakhapatnam : 2009 (235) ELT 248 (Tri.-Bag.), (ii) Bhusan Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Kol.IV : 2005 (186) ELT 197 (Tri.-Kol.) (iii) M/s Ganga Industries Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Bhavnagar : 2007 (209) ELT 140 (Tri.-Ahmd.), to state that the impugned goods cannot be confiscated and penalties cannot be imposed on the appellants. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue, reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since the appellants, Shri Jai Prakash Chaudhary and Shri Abhoy Kr. Singh, Directors of the Appellant Company have categorically stated that there was stock of finished goods in the factory, which were not recorded in the Daily Stock Account, such statements c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of of clandestine removal, the goods cannot be confiscated and penalties cannot be imposed. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s K.K.Polycolor India Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the ld. DR for the Revenue, is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the statement recorded from the authorized representative of the assessee, in that case, had not been retracted at any point of time. However, contrary is the position in this case, wherein the statement recorded from Shri Jai Prakash Chaudhary on 24.12.2008, was immediately retracted on 26.12.2008, which has not been discussed or addressed in the impugned order. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to accept the views of the adjudicating authority i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
