Shri Ashok Agarwal, Director, M/s Agarwal Insulator Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST CCE, Delhi – I
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 314 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2018 (362) E.L.T. 885 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 28-9-2018
Excise Appeals No. 51519 and 52214 of 2018 (SM) – Final Order No. 53057-53058/2018
Central Excise
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellants : Shri Somesh Arora, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri P.R. Gupta, Authorized Representative (DR)
ORDER
PER. ASHOK JINDAL :-
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of duty of Rs. 7,11,718/- has been confirmed against the main appellant alongwith interest and equivalent amount of penalty and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the co-appellant Shri Ashok Agarwal, Director of the company.
2. The facts of the case are that on being received intelligence that the appellants are availing SSI exemption but their turnover has crossed more than Rs
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
said order, the appellants are before me.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that during the course of investigation nothing incriminating was found in their factory premises. All stocks were found in order. Merely on the basis of some loose sheets recovered from the residence of the Director cannot be the basis for alleging clandestine removal of goods in the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that from where the raw material/inputs were procured, where the goods were sold, how the goods were transported, how much electricity were consumed and what is the production capacity of the appellant. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, demand is not sustainable. He also submits that the son of the Director has filed an affidavit explaining these loose sheets, in question, and owned the same and his own responsibility and these loose sheets written by him, but no credence was given to the affidavit, in that circumstances, the demand is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hat in this case the sole issue arises is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, charge of clandestine removal is sustainable against the appellants or not.
7. I find that in this case during the course of investigation, in the factory premises of the appellant, nothing incriminating was found. Moreover, the stocks of raw material as well as finished goods has also found tallied with the statutory records. There are certain loose sheets recovered from the residence of the Director of the appellant company and on the basis of this, the case has been made out against the appellant. I have seen those loose sheets and one of the loose sheet is extracted separately for reference.
8. On going through the said loose sheet, I find that some name i.e. M. Vijayvada is written thereon but to ascertain the truthness of said clearance, no effort has been made by the Revenue to investigate or to find out who is M. Vijayvada. If that effort could have been done, then truth cou
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed order and allow the appeal with consequential relief (if any).
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
Encl: As Above
=============
Document 1
Annik
35-900
32-616
PDZ LL
36-930
38-946
Lo)-
12/13/14
PD11.2
Date
(492)
1496
Või Date
10/02/14
PDL 13
for-2.4.
FD3
38-990
“no t'h
38-94
382
39-630
36-660
33-710
31-642
37-800
3510
38-990
-34-Alo
31-8470
34-790
-36-790
78-190
36920
38-64
38-74
32-640
32-790
35-940
38-850
42.180
39950
35-630
31-990
32130
67-13x
38-770
38-99
38600
37010
39-3000
33900
32-1490
33-90
35700
37640
-44-250.
28-640
28-9%
28-900
76.650
32-130
37-470.
99-990
28990
29-990
48-90-0
33-880
38120
21-700
46-100
318-980
35.725
-331-77
355-665
36-770
385.760
317-620
38712
1005-050 x 480/2 482424-
387-196
ÐлÐ
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =