9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant (s) Shri A.Roy, Authorized Representative for the Respondent (s) ORDER The facts of the case in brief are that a team of the Anti Evasion Unit of Siliguri Headquarters visited the factory-cum office premises of the appellant on 16.05.2013. During search, physical stock of raw materials and alleged finished goods was taken and it was found that there was no record of finished goods lyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013-14 (as on 16.05.2013) was Rs. 28,03,014/-. Shri Sajal Roy undertook that if the sale value of the finished goods comes under the ambit of Central Excise duty, after computation of its sale from private records and statutory records seized from the factory, Central Excise duty would be paid accordingly. There are nine partners in the appellant firm. The appellant applied for provisional releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravention of provison of Rule 4, 6, 8, 10 & 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed on Shri Sajal Roy, Partner of the appellant firm. 3. On appeal, learned Commissioner(Appeals) rejected both the appeals and upheld the adjudication order. Hence the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mercial plywood) and thus they did not consider that production and clearance of commercial plywood viz. veneer is opted. It is also submitted that in the entire proceedings, the partners were examined and statements recorded on several occasions, but nowhere in those statements, they were either asked about such clandestine removal or its was admitted/inferred by any such partners. 6. Shri A.Roy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of such investigation and evidence, I am unable to sustain the demand of duty. Once the demand for duty payable is not sustained, there is no justification to impose penalty on the appellant firm as well as on the partner. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed with consequential benefits, if any. (Order pronounced in the open cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
