9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - demand upheld - penalty on partnership firm upheld - penalty on partner set aside - appeal allowed in part. - E/23013/2014-SM, E/23016/2014-SM - 22503 - 22504 / 2017- - Dated:- 23-10-2017 - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Assistant Commissioner (AR), For the Respondent Per : ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein on account of clandestine removal of goods demand has been confirmed and penalties on the appellant have been imposed. The facts of the case are that on 29.03.2011 a search was conducted in the factory premises of the appellant, it was found that certain manufactured goods have not been entered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen only) cannot be demanded twice. 3. On the other hand the learned AR opposed the contention of the learned counsel and submits that in this case the torn out invoice has been found in dustbin and it was found that on the basis of this invoice goods has been cleared and to that effect statement of Shri Nagappa was recorded who has admitted that they were in a practice of clearing goods under the cover of these type of invoices and after receipt of the goods by the customers, the invoices have been torn out and fresh invoice has been issued which has been cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the demand on that account is to be sustained. 4. Heard the parties. Considered the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue. The contention of the appellant that the said statement has been retracted by way of an affidavit which has been placed on record at the time of reply to the show-cause notice and same has not been considered. I find that the affidavit which has not been filed with the Department in time cannot be the basis for violation that the statement has been retracted from next day by Shri Nagappa. Therefore the retraction is not admissible. Under these circumstances, I hold that Revenue has been able to prove clandestine removal of goods on the basis of the torn of invoices recovered during the course of investigation. Therefore, the demand of ₹ 40,883/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Three only) is confirmed along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
