9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been able to establish that the goods on which credit was taken were processed and cleared on payment of duty - appeal dismissed. Penalty on Biravu Navin Rai - Held that:- It is noticed that he had tried to fabricate and introduce a chart as evidence in the proceedings. It is obvious that he was fully aware of the issue and therefore, his liability to penalty cannot be set aside - decided against appellant. Appeal dismissed. - Appeal No. E/1117 to 1119/09 - A/86556-86558/2018 - Dated:- 25-5-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Vinay Sejpal, Advocate for the appellant Shri D.S. Chavan, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by United Rub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were maintained. However, entries were made in RG23A part I and simultaneously the goods were shown as issued. He admitted that no record was maintained even on computer and no issue slips were prepared in respect of such goods. He admitted that no records were maintained about repair and reclearance in terms of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. 3. After these statements, statement of Vinay Dusane, GM (Material) was recorded on 22.04.2004 wherein he admitted that he had prepared a detail statement of rejected goods repaired and sent back. He admitted that proper correlation of rejected quantity rejected and quantity returned back was not available. Statement of Sailen Kumar Jana was recorded on 22.04.2004. He admitted that no rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records are prescribed under Rule 16. He pointed out the statement prepared by them should be accepted. He argued that most of the repair work was in the nature of reprinting of marking, clamp refitting and removal of grease/ recleaning. 5. Ld. Authorised representative relies on the impugned order. He argued that from the statement of various people employees of the appellant and also CEO it is apparent that no processing on the rejected goods received by them was done. He relied on the statement of Ajith Kumar T.V. Nair, GM Production recorded on 17.2.2004, statement of Dr. Sushant K. Maity, GM (R D) on 17.2.2004, statement of Sailen Kumar Jana recorded on 17.2.2004 all admitted that the goods cannot be repaired and were only cut and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
