2005 (11) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appeals of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are directed against the same order. They were heard together and are disposed of under this common order. 2. The main grievance of the Revenue is that the Commissioner, erroneously, reduced the duty amount of ₹ 7,60,759/- confirmed in adjudication. It is also being contended that the penalty was incorrectly reduced. 3. We ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to the remaining quantity of cement cleared according to the private record, the assessee's explanation was that quantity had been purchased from the market. No evidence whatsoever was adduced in support of the claim relating to the purchase. 5. In the present appeal, the contention of the Revenue is that once clandestine removal remained proved from private records and statements, the Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... justified by the evidence on record. The Commissioner was in error in requiring the Revenue to prove clandestine production from raw material consumption as well. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal of the Revenue in regard to duty demand as well as quantum of penalty on the manufacturer. Accordingly, duty demand is restored to the original amount of ₹ 7,60,759/- confirmed in adj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X