9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods were cleared under invoices, it was found that no entry was made in RG-I register for its factory and no duty was debited in such PLA/RG23A Part-II. Therefore, the goods and vehicle were seized by the officers. In addition, the officers also found four trucks loaded in ready condition for dispatch inside the premises of the respondent. Here too, it was found that no entry of production/clearance of the said goods were found made in the Central Excise records. 4. A show cause notice was issued on 18-12-98 which contemplated confiscation of the goods, vehicle, plant and machinery, etc., besides duty demand and penal action against the respondents. The original adjudicating order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside. Further, there is nothing on record which suggest either evasion or attempt to evade Central Excise Duty by the appellant. Therefore, there is no ground for imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 173O of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, the order of imposition of penalty on Shri Yatesh Shantilal Jain, Director of M/s. Dan Detergents Ltd., is unsustainable and is set aside. However, since the appellant has failed to make a debit entry in their RG23-A Part-II/PLA as stated above, they are liable to penalty under Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, adjudicating authority has not imposed any penalty under this Rule". 6. None represented the respondents today. Learned Jt. CDR while reiterating the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfiscation." 7. I have examined the case records and the submissions made by the learned Jt. CDR. The Tribunal's decision in the case of Mittal Laminates (P) Ltd., makes the position crystal-clear. "Attempt or otherwise for clandestine removal", the order holds, "is not required to be proved". I hold that the Deptt. has established a clear case of evasion of duty which has not been acknowledged in the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned order. The order is also silent about the non-existence of RG-I and PLA entries, in respect of the invoices in question. In view of this, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) order in toto and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue. (Pronounced in the open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
