9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed. ii. The appellant allegedly removed raw material and capital goods to their job worker which are their own unit and inputs were also removed to their godown outside the factory. These inputs, capital goods were seized at the job workers and the godown on which the demand of Rs. 14,93,495/- was raised. iii. The investigating officers recovered the LRs against summon issued to the transporter on the basis of which the adjudicating authority contended that all these LRs are against the clandestine removal of the finished goods and duty of Rs. 13,82,814/- was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the order in original the appellant filed appeal before commissioner (appeals) which came to be rejected, therefore, the present appeal. 2. Sh. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the transporter, he submits that firstly there was no correlation done with the actual duty paid clearance of the appellant. Secondly demand was not raised only in respect of finished goods but also on miscellaneous goods such as stationery, wire, laud gloves etc. which are otherwise not liable for duty, therefore, the demand was raised without application of mind. He submits that other than LRs, there is no evidence to support the charge of clandestine removal. He also submits that appellant have requested for cross-examination of the transporter as the LRs submitted by the transporter is 3rd party evidence, however the request was rejected by the adjudicating authority. 3. Sh. T.K. Sikdar Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments that the goods which were seized were brought back to the appellant's factory and the same were used in the manufacture of final product which were cleared on payment of duty, then no demand shall exist. Consequently, no penalty will be imposable. However, since the appellant have contravened the provision regarding the procedure for movement of goods to the job worker and storage of goods outside the factory, appropriate penalty is imposable under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. This issue needs to be reconsidered on the basis of verification of the documents. 6. As regard the demand of Rs. 13,28,814/- based on LRs, I find that except the transporters' LRs and statement, there is no other evidence. The LRs submitted by the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
