9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1.5 to ₹ 3 per kg. The statement of the buyers had not been retracted and the MD has also not contradicted the statements of the buyers. In these circumstances, we find merit in the impugned order. It is seen that substantial quantity of materials has been cleared in the guise of scrap and amounts have been received in cash. In these circumstances, the role of MD cannot be ruled out. Option to pay reduced penalty - Held that: - Since the option to pay 25% of the penalty subject to the condition of payment of duty along with interest within one month was not extended in the Order-in-Original, the same offer is now extended in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appeal allowed in part. - E/1462 & 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the reliance on the aforesaid deposition made during the panchanama and statement is misplaced as the MD Shri Sharad k Babaria, vide his letter dated 10.3.2001 disagreed with the said statement and deposition made during panchanama. He has argued that said bags were defective and had pre-printed names of other clients and it could not have been marketed at the same price. Statement of Shri O.P. Bhattar, authorized signatory of M/s A.D. Engineering was also recorded, in which he deposed that they had invoiced the HDPE bags/woven fabrics from the appellant @ ₹ 3 per kg, whereas they had paid the appellant @ ₹ 30/- per kg. He also stated that the entire payment was made in cash. Similarly, statement of Shri Girish Bansal, Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. He pointed out that the materials have been sold @ ₹ 3 per kg. He argued that even waste of plastic is more valuable than ₹ 3 per kg and ₹ 1.5 per kg declared by the appellant in their invoice. He further argued that the statement of buyers has not been retracted. He further pointed out that the MD has not expressly deferred with the statement of the buyers, wherein it has been stated that the extra amount was paid in case to the appellant. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the appellants were clearing rejected HDPE bags/woven fabrics @ ₹ 1.5 to ₹ 3 per kg. The Revenue has recorded statements of the appellants employee, who have admitted that they were clearing bags in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
