9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the same impugned order, vide which duty of Rs. 2,08,451/- has been confirmed against the manufacturing unit along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed on Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Director of the factory under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucceed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 4. I have heard Shri Mukund Chouhan, ld. CA appearing for the appellant and Shri N.V.B. Nair, ld. JDR appearing for the respondents. 5. The appellant's main contention is that the evidence considered by the authorities below is not sufficient to come to a finding on clandestine removal against the appellants. By referring to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atements made by Shri Agarwal, the onus gets shifted to the appellants to explain the entries in note book and to rebut the statements as incorrect. Not only that the appellants also agreed to pay the duty at the time of such search. The said deposit was never subsequently challenged by the appellants. If the statements was given under pressure or the deposit was made under cohersion, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Fab (P) Ltd. 7. The appellants have contended that since they have paid the duty before issuance of show cause notice, no penalty should be imposed upon them. However, I do not agree with the contention of the ld. Advocate. The duty demand is based upon the fact of the clandestine removal of the goods, which were detected by the revenue as a result of their visit to their factory. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
