9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat M/s. Analogics Tech India Ltd., Uttarakhand is wrongly availing the benefit of duty exemption by wilful mis-declaration of their products, the officers of Central Excise, Meerut-I Commisisonerate conducted investigation of the said unit on 16-9-2011. During the course of investigation the officers noticed five numbers of GSM/GPRS modems of Model No. AC 626 Bearing S. No. 00069G11 to 00074G11 and the name of manufacturer was noted to be that of appellant herein/Analogics Tech India Ltd., Hyderabad. As the Uttarakhand unit could not produce any documentary evidence in support of payment of excise duty on such modems, an investigation was conducted in the premises of appellant unit at Hyderabad on 29-2-2012. During the course of the verifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enuine impression that no duty was required to be paid, as the goods were cleared for demonstration purpose and would be received back to their factory at Hyderabad. That it was not a case of clandestine clearance and therefore, the imposition of penalty is highly harsh on the appellants. It was also submitted that appellants paid the duty and the interest, before the issuance of show cause notice and for this reason also, the imposition of penalty is not legal or proper. 6. On behalf of the department ld. AR Shri Arun Kumar defended the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant has been clearing the goods out of their factory without payment of excise duty. This fact, that the appellant is clearing goods for Dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urned back after demonstration, and having no commercial value, the appellant had not discharged their duty liability. Though it may be for demonstration purpose, the appellant has to maintain proper records for such clearances. The appellant has failed to keep any such records. In the absence of any interference on behalf of the department, the appellant would have continued to clear the goods for demonstration purpose without payment of duty. The non-maintenance of records while clearing the goods out of the factory, is a strong indication of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. The appellants have also not disclosed such removals in any of their statutory records or in the ER-1 Returns. When there is no records f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
