9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scale evasion of Central Excise Duty by way clandestine removal of Re-rolled products. Such type of activity of removal of excisable goods illicitly is carried out by the re-rolling units with the active help and support of brokers. These brokers procured orders from the different customers/ buyers and thereafter they procured goods from manufacturer and dispatch the goods through Transporters without Central Excise Invoices and without Payment of Central Excise Duty. Searches were conducted at the premises of re-rolling units and certain furnace units and Appellant premises. Statements of Appellants recorded and entries recorded in the notebook/dairies retrieved during the course of investigation revealed that manufacture of excisable good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso the Hon'ble CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by Appellant in another case vide Order No. A/12258/2021 dated 17.06.2021. 4 On the other hand, Shri G. Kirupanandan, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that it is undisputed facts in this case is that the appellant was broker dealing with the CTD bars, flats/patti/patta, etc. During the search conducted in his premises on Appellant, incriminating documents in the form of note books were seized from his possession. These seized documents contained among other things, details of the goods dispatched to various customers without cover of central excise invoice and without payment of duty. These facts were also admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, we find that both the adjudicating authority has considered the entire records and evidences as is against the appellant and imposed the penalty. I find that there is confessional statement of Appellant, the entire clandestine activity was also supported by the transactions recorded in records which were recovered from appellant. Further the Manufacturer, M/s Chamunda Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. also not disputed the demand of central excise duty involving the role of appellant in this matter. We also agree with the argument of Ld. AR that ratio of final order dated 21.08.2019 and dated 17.06.2021 not applicable in the present matter. On the face of such evidence, I have to hold that penalty provisions were correctly invoked to impose pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
