Shri Ashok Agarwal, Director, M\/s Agarwal Insulator Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST CCE, Delhi \u2013 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)<\/p>\n
For the Appellants : Shri Somesh Arora, Advocate<\/p>\n
For the Respondent : Shri P.R. Gupta, Authorized Representative (DR)<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
PER. ASHOK JINDAL :-<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n said order, the appellants are before me.<\/p>\n 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 <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ed order and allow the appeal with consequential relief (if any).<\/p>\n (Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.)<\/p>\n Encl: As Above<\/p>\n ============= 35-900<\/p>\n 32-616<\/p>\n PDZ LL<\/p>\n 36-930<\/p>\n 38-946<\/p>\n Lo)-<\/p>\n 12\/13\/14<\/p>\n PD11.2<\/p>\n Date<\/p>\n (492)<\/p>\n 1496<\/p>\n V\u00c3\u00b5i Date<\/p>\n 10\/02\/14<\/p>\n PDL 13<\/p>\n for-2.4.<\/p>\n FD3<\/p>\n 38-990<\/p>\n “no t'h<\/p>\n 38-94<\/p>\n 382<\/p>\n 39-630<\/p>\n 36-660<\/p>\n 33-710<\/p>\n 31-642<\/p>\n 37-800<\/p>\n 3510<\/p>\n 38-990<\/p>\n -34-Alo<\/p>\n 31-8470<\/p>\n 34-790<\/p>\n -36-790<\/p>\n 78-190<\/p>\n 36920<\/p>\n 38-64<\/p>\n 38-74<\/p>\n 32-640<\/p>\n 32-790<\/p>\n 35-940<\/p>\n 38-850<\/p>\n 42.180<\/p>\n 39950<\/p>\n 35-630<\/p>\n 31-990<\/p>\n 32130<\/p>\n 67-13x<\/p>\n 38-770<\/p>\n 38-99<\/p>\n 38600<\/p>\n 37010<\/p>\n 39-3000<\/p>\n 33900<\/p>\n 32-1490<\/p>\n 33-90<\/p>\n 35700<\/p>\n 37640<\/p>\n -44-250.<\/p>\n 28-640<\/p>\n 28-9%<\/p>\n 28-900<\/p>\n 76.650<\/p>\n 32-130<\/p>\n 37-470.<\/p>\n 99-990<\/p>\n 28990<\/p>\n 29-990<\/p>\n 48-90-0<\/p>\n 33-880<\/p>\n 38120<\/p>\n 21-700<\/p>\n 46-100<\/p>\n 318-980<\/p>\n 35.725<\/p>\n -331-77<\/p>\n 355-665<\/p>\n 36-770<\/p>\n 385.760<\/p>\n 317-620<\/p>\n 38712<\/p>\n 1005-050 x 480\/2 482424-<\/p>\n 387-196<\/p>\n \u00d0\u0090\u00d0\u00bb\u00d0<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Shri Ashok Agarwal, Director, M\/s Agarwal Insulator Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST CCE, Delhi \u2013 ICentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 314 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2018 (362) E.L.T. 885 (Tri. – Del.)CESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 28-9-2018Excise Appeals No. 51519 and 52214 of 2018 (SM) – Final Order No. 53057-53058\/2018Central ExciseShri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For … Continue reading “Shri Ashok Agarwal, Director, M\/s Agarwal Insulator Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST CCE, Delhi \u2013 I”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14314\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nDocument 1
\nAnnik<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n