9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory of the appellant No. 1 - There is no corroborative evidence that SRSDL received raw material, manufactured and cleared the goods clandestinely. Hence allegations made against SRSDL and Sh. Ajay Kumar Malhotra, appellant NO. 1 2 are not sustainable and their appeals are to be allowed. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The penalty u/r 26 cannot be imposed upon a corporate body. The appellant is a private limited company hence penalty imposed is not sustainable - the penalty imposed is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 50065 of 2019, 50066 of 2019, 50272 of 2019-SM - FINAL ORDER NOS. 50641-50643/2020 - Dated:- 17-3-2020 - HON BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Bip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Based on the Tally data from the laptop resumed from Bhiwadi RMPL It appeared that SRSDL has supplied 597.205 MT Miss-Rolls to BRMPL without payment of duty during the period 16.12.2011 to 01.09.2012, involving Central Excise Duty of ₹ 24,53,544/-. 7. Statement of Shri Ajay Kumar Malhotra (Appellant No.2) Director of appellant No.1 was recorded on 22.12.2015 in which he denied supply of 597.205 MT Miss-Rolls to BRMPL. He stated that whenever they supplied Miss-Roll, it was cleared on payment of duty. 8. Accordingly show cause notice was issued to all the three appellants. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 24,53,544/- upon appellant No.1-shri Rathi, beside imposing penalty of equal amount. He als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Del)] 11. It was further argued that the demand is wholly time barred and also no penalty is imposable. 12. Learned AR Ms. Tamanna Alam supports the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 13. After hearing both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances I observe that whole of the case is based upon third party record. There is no corroborative evidence supporting the allegations of the department. The director of appellant No. 1- Sh. Ajay Kumar Malhotra specifically denied any clandestine clearance of Miss-Roll to BRMPL. The department neither made investigation from the transporter or the truck drivers who transported the goods from the factory of the appellant No. 1. There is no corroborative evidence tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
