9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd zinc metallic residue). The duty demand has been confirmed against the appellant-company and penalty has been imposed on its Managing Director appellant No. 2, on the allegations that they had cleared zinc ingots in the guise of zinc metallic residue and thereby paid less duty than the duty required to be paid by them on zinc ingots. They also undervalued the goods by making clearances through related company after appellant No. 3. By misdeclaration of the goods, they had evaded duty of Rs. 25,335/- and by undervaluation of Rs. 7,74,218/-. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty on these two counts against the company appellant No. 1 and imposed penalties on the other two appellants. 3. We have heard both the sides and gone t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany. 5. The other two witnesses are namely Shri Pawan Kumar, and Manoj Agarwal. Their bald statements that they received zinc ingots from the trading company appellant No. 3, could not be accepted as a substantive evidence against the company appellant No. 1, without seeking corroboration from other evidence. There is no tangible evidence to prove that trading company appellant No. 3, denied of having not supplied metallic residue to them. Moreover, no samples of the goods were seized or taken from them and got tested from the chemical examiner to ascertain the true nature of the goods i.e. zinc ingots or zinc metallic residue, purchased by them through the trading company appellant No. 3. 6. Besides this, as per sub-heading note of Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 2. Mere description of the goods as zinc ingots by the trading company, appellant No. 3, to their buyers which were in fact, zinc metallic residue, could not be accepted as substantial evidence against appellants No. 1 and 2. Therefore, the impugned order of the adjudicating authority saddling appellants No. 1 and 2 with the duty and penalty on account of mis-description of the goods cannot be sustained. 8. Similarly, the impugned order confirming the duty on account of undervaluation of the goods by the appellants No. 1 and 2, by clearing the same through related person i.e., company, appellant No. 3, cannot be maintained under the law. Even if it is taken that appellant No. 3 at the material time was related person of appellant No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
