9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e out on the basis of rough papers seized during the course of investigation, which were in the possession of the employees of the appellants, who made inculpatory statement at the time of seizure of the documents. But, the Managing Director has controverted the statement made by the employees. Moreover, three parallel invoices on the basis of which demand has been confirmed against the appellants were not examined. Neither an investigation was made with the buyers mentioned in those parallel invoices nor any investigation was made with the transporters. No effort was made to find out, who is the author of those invoices. In the absence of any corroboration to that effect, the demand is not sustainable. Moreover, the cross-examination of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hosh, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty alleging clandestine clearance of goods and imposing penalty on both the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are that the departmental officers searched the factory premises of the appellant on 02.06.2012 and during the course of search some pages containing some entries allegedly Daily Report, three invoices, waybill were found. Statement of Shri Kailash Chandra Bhol and Shri Santosh Kumar Pareek, the employees of the appellant company were recorded, who stated that the entries made in those documents pertains to clearance of some goods without payment of duty, some on which duty has been paid, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the strength of parallel invoices, nor any enquiry was made to corroborate the documents recovered during the course of investigation, in that circumstances, the demands against the appellants are not sustainable. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.Authorized Representative for the department supported the impugned order and submitted that it is the case where the parallel invoices were recovered during the course of investigation which was admitted by the employees of the appellants, who were looking after the business of the appellants, therefore, demand is rightly confirmed and penalties are rightly imposed on the appellants. 5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation. Moreover, this Tribunal in the case of S.K.V. Chemicals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry [2006 (193) E.L.T. 212 (Tri.-Chennai)] held that mere factum of two set of invoices is not sufficient to prove the charge of clandestine removal in the absence of positive evidence with regard to the same. 8. Admittedly in the case at hand no investigation was conducted at the end of the buyers mentioned in the invoices and transporter of the goods. In the absence of the same, the demand cannot be raised against the appellants. Therefore, I set aside the impugned demand raised against the main appellant and penalty imposed on both the appellants. 9. In view of this, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
