9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 statutory records and certain torn out invoices were also found in dustbin and and Statement of one Shri Nagappa, authorized signatory was also recorded. On the basis of the statement and the invoice, it was alleged that appellant is engaged in the activity of clandestine removal of goods, therefore a show-cause notice was issued to demand duty along with interest and to impose penalty on both the appellants. The matter was adjudicated demand of duty was confirmed alleging clandestine removal of goods and penalties on both the appeals were imposed. Against the said order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 submissions. 5. On careful consideration of submissions, I find that during the course of investigation, certain torn out invoices were found and a sample invoice extracted below: 6. The sole contention of the appellant is that neither invoice no. is mentioned nor name of the consignee is mentioned therefore it cannot be alleged that goods has been cleared clandestinely. Moreover no other evidence has been produced by the Revenue. I have gone through the invoices. On going through the invoice, I find that in case of clandestine removal neither invoice no. is required nor the name of the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of investigation. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 40,883/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Three only) is confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty on the main appellant is imposed. Further I find that a demand of Rs. 32,815/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen only) has been confirmed on the goods seized during the course of investigation as the said goods has been cleared on payment of duty during the said period is set aside. Further I find that a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) has been imposed on Shri Raviraj partner. I find that as M/s. Maharaja Industries is partnership firm, therefore separate penalty on the partner cannot be imposed. Therefore, penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
