9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hole scenario appears to be a set up, that too, after a long gap of nearly 29 months, which was not required. There is no merit in the argument of appellant that the Revenue has not relied on the statement of M/s. PE in its Show Cause Notice since, in the statement dated 14.09.2012 the appellant has acknowledged having gone through the statement of M/s. PE, wherein he has also accepted the statement as ‚true‛ by which further probe of the Revenue was blocked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No.: E/40707/2018 - Final Order No. 42744/2018 - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby upholding the penalty levied by the lower adjudicating authority. Aggrieved, the assessee has come in appeal before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Ms. S. Sridevi appeared for the appellant and Ld. AC (AR) Shri. L. Nandakumar appeared for the Revenue, I have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents taken through during the course of hearing and have also gone through the decisions/Orders referred to during the course of hearing. The only grievance on the above facts is, whether there is any liability of penalty in terms of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002? 4. During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate heavily relied on a statement of retraction dated 19.02.2015 recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement of admission/guilt vide first statement dated 14.09.2012, further investigation by the Revenue was stalled as there was nothing more to be done by the Revenue. 5.2 Further, the plea of the assessee as to the submission of bank statement, etc., reflecting receipt from M/s. PE coupled with its further statement that there was no hard and fast rule that payment from customers should be received exactly matching with the invoices raised which are required to be correlated, does not hold any water because if the company s case is audited, then the balance-sheet drawn without matching would not be free from suspicion. 6. With regard to the appellant s claim on the so-called statement of retraction dated 19.02.2015, I find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
