9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturers of excisable products have been involved in clandestine removal of excisable goods i.e. sponge iron, MS ingots, MS Billet etc. manufactured by them through the appellant herein who has been the commission agent for the manufacturers M/s. Shree Sita Ispat and Power Ltd.; that the search was conducted in the business premises of the appellant under Panchnama dated 20.12.2006 based upon the incriminating records relating to clandestine removal of the aforesaid excisable goods that the show cause notice No. 23851/2010 dated 23.12.2010 was served upon the appellant proposing the imposition of penalty upon the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the act of connivance and collusion with M/s. Shree Sita Ispa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers relied upon by both the parties, it is observed that the adjudicating authority below has based its findings upon that the entries recovered from the premises of Kailash Traders to have not been disputed by the Kailash Traders and there has already been judgement in favour of the Department dated 23.05.2017 and 25.9.2013 bearing Final Order No. 57814-57815/2013. I have the opportunity to peruse the judgement dated 23.5.2017 as has been filed by the learned Departmental Revenue. Perusal thereof shows that the judgement is absolutely silent about any evidence produced by the Department against M/s. Kailash Traders. From paragraph 5 of the said judgement, it appears that the decision is result of the fact that the principal manufacturer M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the mens area/ intent on the part of the appellant which prove that he knew or had reason to believe that excisable goods with which he is involved, he is transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with such excisable goods, are liable for confiscation, he cannot be penalised under Rule 26. The entire record does not reveal any evidence or the document produced by the Department to reflect or to prove the same. I have no reason to differ with the decision of this Tribunal of the year 2018 which have been passed under the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. Resultantly, order under challenge which is held to be presumptive in nature. Accordingly, the same is hereby set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
