TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so the penalty of the like amount, on the company under the proviso to Section 11A(1) and Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner has also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- (Rupees two crores and sixty lacs) on Shri Sunil Kumar Bansal, and Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (two crores and fifty lacs) on Shri Praveen Bansal, Directors of the Company, and Rs. 2,30,00,000/- (two crores and thirty lacs) on Shri Richh Pal Singh, Manager of the company, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has by a common order dated 29-7-2009 partly allowed the applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of the Central Excise Duty and penalty on the company to the extent that the Directors and the Manager of the company have been required to deposit only Rs. 10 lakhs each as pre-condition of filing of their appeals. By order dated 13-8-2009, this court had, restrained the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals until 1st September, 2009, if they were not already decided. The court declared 1st September, 2009 as holiday and thus these all the appeals have come up for hearing today. 4. Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arty with an intent to use the same in the manufacturing of the finished excisable goods and for confiscation under above said provisions. Since, the finished excisable goods i.e. premises of the party without payment of central excise duty thereon said M.S. Flat also appeared liable for confiscation under above said provisions. 14. Summons were issued to Shri Sunil Bansal for his appearance before Superintendent (AE) on 26-7-2007, 30-7-2007, 16-8-2007 and on 3-10-2007 but he did not appear in compliance thereof. However, vide letter dated 3-10-2007 Shri Sunil Bansal informed that even after the orders dated 13-9-2007 of Hon'ble High Court to harass them and they may not be compelled to appear before the release of the seized goods. Therefore, another writ petition No. 1431 of 2007 was filed by the Party before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad wherein they prayed for :- (a) Quashing of summons dated 27-9-2007 (for appearance on 3-10-2007). (b) For release of seized goods and truck. (c) Not to any coercive steps against the petitioner company in any manner. 17. It was further directed by the Hon'ble High Court that : "Moreover, when the earlier writ petition was dispo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d date, vide this office letter dated 3-9-2008, they were allowed to represent any defence reply nor appeared before the adjudicating authority on the fixed dates when the case was posted for personal hearing under due intimation to them. They neither appeared for personal hearing nor sought any adjournment for personal hearing. They did hearing despite ample opportunity given to them. 68.2 It has been alleged in the notice that the party was indulged in the clandestine production of finished goods and its surreptitious removal without issuing any invoice and thus they evaded the duty which was leviable on the said finished goods removed clandestinely by them. It has been alleged that the party procured the raw materials clandestinely, suppressed the production of finished goods and removed the same surreptitiously without any invoice so as to suppress the value of clearances with intent to evade duty leviable thereon. The allegation of clandestine removal of finished goods is based on the material evidences which were collected during the checking/search of factory and during the course of investigation of the case which have been relied upon in the above show cause notice. I h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivery of the said goods purportedly sold by the party to them (M/s. Rahul Enterprises). Furthermore, Shri Ajay Chaudhary, the driver of the truck has also stated that the goods were loaded in the Truck from the factory of the party and cleared therefrom with the said bill No. 111 of M/s. Rahul Enterprises given to him by Shri Ranjit Sinha the Chowkidar of the factory and he further stated that thereafter the weighment of the goods loaded in the truck was done on Jain Dharmkanta before proceeding to Ghaziabad. Thus, it is seen that the weighment of goods was not done before its removal from the factory and the same were removed with the bill of M/s. Rahul Enterprises showing its sale by M/s. Rahul Enterprises to M/s. Swadeshi Steel even without knowing its actual weight. Even if it is accepted for argument sake the subject goods were sold by the party to M/s. Rahul Enterprises, it is not understood as to how it is possible to effect the sale of goods without knowing its weight and how the bill could have been issued by the party in favour of M/s. Rahul Enterprises. Thus, it becomes more evident that the subject goods were cleared from the factory clandestinely and as such they did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any bill etc. was prepared or not in respect of clearance of subject seized quantities of goods loaded in truck and further stated that Shri R.P. Bansal may clarify about the same. It seems to be very strange that Shri Sunil Bansal, who is director of the noticee-company, was ignorant about the fact of the issuance of any invoice in its clearance from the factory and as such the matter relating to issuance of said invoice in respect of said consignment had assumed significant importance. Had any invoice been actually issued by them at the time of clearance of subject goods, he would have definitely been aware about this. Thus, it is evident that the said bill was not issued at time of clearance of said goods from the factory and that they managed to issue the said bill No. 42 dated 25-7-2007 in favour of M/s. Rahul Enterprises subsequently only. Hence, I find that the said bill No. 42 presented at the belated stage is not worthy of credence in support of their contention of purported sale of subject goods to M/s. Rahul Enterprises. Therefore, from the aforesaid evidences and the factual position, it is evidently clear that the said goods were cleared from the factory premises cland....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... UP 14J 7877. HR 38B 9986, UP 14K 1975, UP 13H 2307 are registered in the personal names of directors of the party and these vehicles are also used for transportation of raw materials up to their factory. As the above register, recovered from their factory premises, contains the date-wise details of receipt of raw materials and dispatches of finished goods which were shown to have been transported in the above mentioned vehicles owned by the directors of the company (Noticee No. 1) and in view of the above statements of Shri Sunil Bansal, Shri Praveen Bansal, Shri Richpal Bansal (wherein they have stated that the all the vehicles, mentioned in the above register, were owned by the directors of the company (Notice no. 1) and the same were used for transportation of their own raw materials and finished goods. It is clear that the above register pertains to them only and it contains the details of finished goods removed to them from their own factory and receipt of materials into their factory. Further on careful perusal of the weighment-slips (RUD-3B) recovered from their factory premises during the search conducted on 25-7-2007, it is seen that vehicle numbers shown therein are the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....makes it amply clear that the party (Noticee No. 1) was indulged in clandestine removal of finished goods without any invoice. Further, the above-mentioned incriminating documents viz. Private register (RUD-3A) and weighment-slips (RUD-3B) recovered during search from the factory premises have details receipt of raw materials and removal of finished goods in the vehicles owned by the Director of the Company (noticee no. 1) are found to be cogent and tangible as discussed herein above. On going through the aforesaid evidence, it is observed that the party have admitted the facts contained in the documentary evidences. This is evident from the statements tendered by the directors and manager of the party, the statement of the driver and the statement of the clerk of M/s. Jain Dharamkanta. As I have already observed, the party have not filed their defence with any substantial and legal reply so as to controvert the said allegations made in the notice. 70. As regards amount of duty liable be recovered from the party, the facts already discussed and as detailed in the notice show that they have removed finished excisable goods valued at Rs. 19,36,80,410/- during the period 2003-04 to....