2001 (8) TMI 603

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal is directed against the confirmation of duty demand, penalty etc. as made in the adjudication order No. 25/CE/JPR-II/97, dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The facts leading to the passing of the adjudication order are that the Central Excise officers intercepted an auto rickshaw which was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the bags found in the auto rickshaw tallied with the serial numbers given on the packing slip of the goods covered by the Inovice dated 4-8-1995. They contended that the tallying of the numbers confirm their explanation that the goods transported in the auto rickshaw on 5-8-1995 were a part of the goods which had been removed on payment of duty under the Invoice dated 4-8-1995. This explanation d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the explanation of Shri Lalit Kothari in the statement of 5-8-1995 lacked full particulars, inasmuch as no details of the tempo in which the goods were to be transported on 4-8-1995 were given. He also submitted that the transportation carried out by the appellant was under clear violation of Rule 52A(4) of the Central Excise Rules which stipulated that if a consignment is transported on differe....