2003 (7) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the present appeal being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Shillong, vide which she has set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner confirming demand of duty of Rs. 3,23,452.00 (Rupees three lakh twenty-three thousand four hundred and fifty-two) and imposing personal penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand). 2. As per facts on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs for dry Veneers. However, the respondents paid an amount of Rs. 2.50 lakh (Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand) during the course of investigations. 3. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against them, which culminated into an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalty. 4. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -5-95, the said fact would go to show that the assessee was guilty. Apart from the above ground, there is no other evidence pointed out by the Revenue in their memo of appeal. 6. We find that the mere fact that the assessee deposited the said amount during the course of investigations, by itself cannot be made the basis for arriving at a finding against the assessee. As rightly observed by the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X