9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealing with the goods i.e. BOPP Bags manufactured by the M/s. Shubham Polymers with intention to avail SSI exemption by M/s. Shubham Polymers. With this undisputed fact the good dealt with by the present appellant are indeed liable for confiscation. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 26 was rightly imposed. However, considering that the entire goods dealt with by appellant all goods are not manufactured exclusively by M/s. Shubham Polymers. On the basis of the buyers statement. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 10 Lacs is on higher side and same deserves to be reduced. Hence, the penalty reduced from Rs. 10 Lacs to Rs. 4 Lacs. Appeal allowed in part. - Excise Appeal No. 11091 of 2013-SM - Final Order No. A/11169/2023 - Dated:- 29-5-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.1 He further submits that on the fact also the statements recorded of both Mr. Ashok Proprietor of M/s. Shubham Polymers and Mr. Bimal Kumar Dhareva, Proprietor of M/s. Swastik are exculpatory. They have categorically stated that wherever in the invoice, BOPP Films is written they have sold BOPP Films which is a bought out item. 2.2 He further submits that out of 7 buyers only 3 buyers have given inculpatory statement but the remaining 4 buyers have stated that they have received BOPP Films . Consequently, in absence of conclusive and clinching evidence penalty cannot be imposed on the present appellant. He also relied upon the Hon ble Supreme Court Judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1025 in case of Ram Pratap vs. The State of Har ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il SSI exemption by M/s. Shubham Polymers. With this undisputed fact the good dealt with by the present appellant are indeed liable for confiscation. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 26 was rightly imposed. However, considering that the entire goods dealt with by appellant all goods are not manufactured exclusively by M/s. Shubham Polymers. On the basis of the buyers statement. Accordingly, I am of the view that the penalty of Rs. 10 Lacs is on higher side and same deserves to be reduced. Hence, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 10 Lacs to Rs. 4 Lacs. 5. With the above observation the impugned order is modified to the above extent. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (Pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2023 ) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
