9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per. Ashok Jindal :- The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of Rs. 22,60,000/- has been confirmed against them alongwith interest and penalty on both the appellants have been imposed. 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of intelligence, an investigation was conducted at the factory premises of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated by them to inflate their sale figures to obtain loans from the banks and no incriminating statement has ever been given by the appellant. In that circumstances, demand is not sustainable. To support this, he relied on the decision of M/s Vijay Packaging Systems Ltd. and others vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2010 - TIOL - 1662 - CESTAT - BANG. 4. On the other hand, learned AR submits during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n written on the invoice and after making investigation from the consignee it was found that he has not received any goods from the appellant which proved stand of the appellant. Moreover, no incriminating statement has ever been recorded during the course of investigation. Further, the statement of Shri Mahesh Tiwari which was heavily relied upon by the Revenue was retracted by him very next day. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cleared, how the extra labour has been employed and flow back of money. Admittedly, no effort has been made and the only effort has been made from the consignee who also stated that goods were not purchase from the appellant. In that circumstances, I rely on the decision of Vijay Packaging Systems Ltd. and others (supra), the charge of clandestine removal of goods remained unproved. In that circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
