9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the activity of clandestine removal of goods and they have to brought on record supportive evidence like certificate from the principal manufacturer or certificate from the buyer who has returned the goods. The appellant has failed to prove with documentary evidence that the demand is not sustainable on account of clandestine removal of goods - demand upheld. Considering the fact that the mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief facts of the case are that on 6.1.2005, a surprise visit was conducted at the factory premises of the appellants wherein certain loose slips were recovered for clearance of goods for the period 2004-2005. On the basis of these kucha slips, it was alleged that the appellant is engaged in the activity of clandestine clearanceof the goods. As the appellant was availing SSI exemption, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challans, job worked goods and goods returned, demands have been confirmed without appreciating the documents. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable against the appellants. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that as it is an admitted fact by the appellants that they are clearing the goods on the basis of kucha slips and some of the kucha slip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shift on the appellant to prove that the challans which have been cancelled has actually been cancelled and no goods has been supplied against those challans. Moreover, for job work goods, the onus cast on the appellant to prove that they have done job work for their principal manufacturer and for that no evidence has been brought on record by the appellants to prove that they have done job work f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d confirmed by the impugned order is upheld along with interest. 7. Considering the fact that the main appellant has paid duty along with interest and 25% penalty, therefore, penalty on the main appellant is restricted to 25% of the duty demand. Further, I find that penalty on the Director is on higher side, therefore, penalty on the Director, namely Shri Pawan Goyal reduced to ₹ 40,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
