9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is totally incorrect and the main appellant s were seeking cross examination of this gentlemen which were not offered to. The law is settled on this point as to if no cross examination is granted in respect of a person them the statement cannot be considered as of any evidentiary value. Penalty on the director - Held that: - in entire proceedings the Adjudicating Authority has not pointed out, any role that could be attributable to the Shri Rajkishore Chaturvedi for visiting him with penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the entire demand raised against the main appellant is set aside, no penalty can be imposed on the director - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were disposed of by this Bench by an order No. CB/686-688/WZB/04 dated 19.05.2004 and remanded for reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority. The part which was remanded by the Bench was to correlate and reconcile the entries with chit books with duty paid clearance of goods; directed the adjudicating authority to follow the principle of natural justice before coming to a conclusion. The impugned order in these appeals is passed in remand proceedings after following principles of natural justice and the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has confirmed the demand of ₹ 12,26,279/- with interest and imposed ₹ 32,28,541/- as penalty, ordered for confiscation on land, building, plant and machinery of the main appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooks recovered during the visit of the officers to main appellant s factory premises. I perused the copies of chit books recovered and copies thereof annexed to the appeal memorandum. It is also undisputed these two chit books contained information which indicated duty paid clearances also. 6. I find that the Adjudicating Authority has totally misconstrued the provisions of the law and the law as settled by the various decisions of the Tribunal as to confirmation of the demands on clandestine removal. It is now settled law, clandestine removal is a very serious allegation and needs to be corroborated with solid evidence. 7. In the case in hand, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demands only on the basis of two c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared in a clandestine manner by main appellant. In absence of such corroborative evidence, I find that the demand is not sustainable. Further, Revenue Authorities/Investigating Authorities have not brought on record as to whether and how the main appellant had received the consideration for the alleged clandestine removal of the inputs and finished goods. In the absence of any consideration being shown to have been received by the main appellant, the allegation of clandestine removal is fails. The judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the following case squarely covers the issue in the favour of the main appellant CCE Vs. Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd., [2014 (308) ELT 655] and CCE Vs. Gopi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., [2014 (310) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
