9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of records with physical stock by the officers and accepted the lapse of the stock found short. Coupled with the admissions made by Shri Shikar Agarwal, the modus operandi of the appellant of not maintaining any kind of Daily Stock at the factory premises, not making entry of final products in the daily production register, not issuing any invoices in respect of excisable goods cleared and neither declared the production and clearance of excisable goods so manufactured and cleared in the ER-1 Returns only reflects that shortage of the finished goods and the raw materials during the physical verification at the time of preventive check is evident of the fact of clandestine removal with intent to evade payment of duty. The objection raised by the appellant that search was without search warrant is not sustainable as per the records made available and considered in the impugned order. The Revenue has placed on record the authorization dated 15.01.2015 by the Additional Commissioner (Preventive) to the Superintendent (Preventive) authorizing him to search the premises, etc. of the appellant. From the impugned order, it is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had categorically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... casion on 04.07.2024, it was made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted. Hence, we have heard Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Authorised Representative for the respondent and perused the records of the case. 4. The challenge by the appellant is that the preventive checks at the factory premises were conducted without any search warrant, authorizing the departmental officers to conduct the search. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the proceedings are un-sustainable as neither the show cause notice nor the relied upon documents were served upon him nor did he receive any notice for the personal hearing. The allegations of clandestine removal were denied as there was no mention of any specific period when the goods were clandestinely removed. In the absence of any period mentioned, it cannot be presumed that the alleged sales must have taken place beyond the normal period of limitation of one year and, therefore, the demand made by invoking the extended period of limitation is not permissible. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the levy of penalty by submitting that there was no clandestine removal of goods by the appellant and the Revenue has failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d accepted the lapse of the stock found short. Coupled with the admissions made by Shri Shikar Agarwal, the modus operandi of the appellant of not maintaining any kind of Daily Stock at the factory premises, not making entry of final products in the daily production register, not issuing any invoices in respect of excisable goods cleared and neither declared the production and clearance of excisable goods so manufactured and cleared in the ER-1 Returns only reflects that shortage of the finished goods and the raw materials during the physical verification at the time of preventive check is evident of the fact of clandestine removal with intent to evade payment of duty. 8. On the principle what is admitted need not be proved, as held by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Madras Vs. Systems and Components Pvt. Ltd. [ 2004 (165) ELT 136(SC)], the charge of clandestine removal stood conclusively proved by the admissions of the authorized signatory of the company. Similarly, the observations of the Tribunal in the case of K.P. Basheer Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [ 1999 (109) ELT 247 (T)] , the admitted facts need not be proved or established by the Department. We are, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secrecy and stealth being its covering guards, it is impossible for the preventive department to unravel every link of the process. Many facts relating to this illicit business remain in its special or peculiar knowledge of the person concern. 11. The objection raised by the appellant that search was without search warrant is not sustainable as per the records made available and considered in the impugned order. The Revenue has placed on record the authorization dated 15.01.2015 by the Additional Commissioner (Preventive) to the Superintendent (Preventive) authorizing him to search the premises, etc. of the appellant. From the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had categorically noted that the panchnama makes it clear that the search warrant was shown to Shri Ram Avtar Agarwal, Director of the appellant and he had signed the search warrant. On the issue that the show cause notice, the relied upon documents and the personal hearing notices were not received by the appellant, we find that the appellant is mis-leading as the acknowledgement receipts of the show cause notices duly signed by the authorized signatory of the appellant are on record. In fact this Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
