9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Appellant Absent for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Mohd. Altaf learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 2. As per facts on record, the party is engaged in the manufacturing of Packaged Drinking water under CETH 22 of the first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amended by Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2005. A visit was made to by the department officers, the seizure of goods valued at ₹ 91,872/- with duty involvement of ₹ 11,455/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king water, kept in the party s office premises, valued at ₹ 91,872/- involving Central Excise duty of ₹ 11,355/- seized on 12/07/2013 under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He also confirmed the demand of interest as applicable on such demand of ₹ 46,35,990/- for the period 2011-12 to June 2013, ₹ 4,94,997/- for the period July 2013 to March 2014, ₹ 18,09,206/- for the period April 2014 to December, 2014 under Section (11AA) of the Act. He also confirmed the imposition of penalty of ₹ 46,35,990/- for the period 2011-12 to June 2013, ₹ 4,94,997/- for the period July 2013 to March 2014, ₹ 18,09,206/- for the period April 2014 to December, 2014 under Section (11AC) of the Act. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mentioned in the register, which were not being manufactured by the party such as Mount Kailash, KAN, McDowell Soda that also supports the claim of the party that register belongs to contractor who works with other entities. Thus, the genuineness of register, maintained by the party is in doubt, therefore, all the entries are also doubtful. Therefore, he is of the opinion that department case of clandestine removal is not proved beyond doubt. This issue has been decided in following case Laws:- 1. LAXMI ENGG. WORKS reported in 2001 (134) ELT 811. 2. ESSVEE POLYMERS (P) LTD. reported in 2004 (165) ELT 0291. 3. DUROLAM LTD. reported in 2007 (212) ELT 429. 4. T.G.L. POSHAK CORPORATION reported in 2002 (140) ELT 187. 5. SHARM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
