9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 units in contravention against the invoices of the appellant is amounting to [Rs.46,83,774/-(BED-Rs.39,76,774/- plus ED Cess Rs. 78,622/- plus SHE Rs. 39,689/- plus AED-Rs. 5,88,689/-] + [Rs. 6,76,868/- (BED-Rs. 4,78,010/- plus ED.Cess-Rs- Rs. 9,570/- plus SHE-Rs. 4,787/- plus AED-Rs. 1,84,501/-]=53,60,642/-. Taking note of the fact that penalty imposed on the appellant is above 50% of the credit taken by the set 2 units - the penalty imposed is excessively high. Hence for justice will be met if the set penalty is reduced to 10% of the penalty imposed on the appellant - Impugned order in respect of the appellant is thus modified holding the penalty of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs against the appellant. Appeal allowed in part. - Excise Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedure Rules, 1982 as per Order No. A/85568-85569/2023. 3.1 We have heard Shri. M. L. Grover Advocate for the appellant and Shri. Amrendra Kumar Jha Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the revenue arguing for the appellant. 3.2 Learned Counsel submits: The Learned Commissioner has also grossly erred in giving a finding that Proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Metals in his statement dated 21.12.2010 whereas the fact is that there is no statement of Mr. Mukesh Kapoorchand Metha dtd.21.12.2010, Only 2 statements of Mukesh K. Mehta were recorded one on 24.11.2010 and the second on 06.12.2010 which are mentioned in SCN also. The so called admission in the nonest statement dtd.21.12.2010 is untrue. Para 11 of the show cause (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 For holding appellant responsible commissioner as in para 32 recorded as follows: I also find that M/s Ganesh Metals, are registered under Central Excise law as a dealer. They are, therefore, duty bound to clear the excisable goods from their godown under a cover of Central Excise invoice, as required under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, in the present case, the investigations conducted have clearly revealed that M/s Ganesh Metals have issued only Central Excise invoices, to M/s Lipid and/or M/s Bran, and have not supplied the excisable goods mentioned therein, as they have failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the said goods, in fact, were acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns mentioned in the respective invoices. Thus, there is no doubt about the fact of non- transportation of material from M/s Ganesh Metals to M/s Lipid and / or M/s Bran. It is also a fact that neither M/s Ganesh Metals nor M/s Lipid and/ or M/s Bran have produced octroi receipts in respect of the said transactions, so as to prove that there was infact a transportation of the said goods from M/s Ganesh Metals to M/s Lipid and/or M/s Bran.. As such, the contention of M/s Ganesh Metals, that the statements of Sh. Manoj Oswal of M/s Chintamani Transport and Sh. Prashant A. Gosavi of M/s Abhishek Transport are not reliable, is not correct and hence not acceptable. The said fact / omission on the part of M/s Ganesh Metals relating to non transpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
