2005 (6) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allen within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem. 2. The relevant facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under : The appellants were dealing in Tobacco during the material period. Unmanufactured/unbranded tobacco was exempt from duty of excise during that period. The period of dispute in this case is 1-8-95 to 14-6-96. On 14-6-96, officers of Central Excise intercepted a vehicle which was carrying branded tobacco from the appellants' factory. 21 bags of the product valued at Rs. 12,100/- were seized from the vehicle. In a subsequent visit by the officers to the factory, an excess stock of 29 bags of branded tobacco along with 54 bags of cut tobacco, together valued at Rs. 12,925/-, was found and these....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of duty from the appellants as also to penalize them on the alleged ground of clandestine removal of excisable goods. The allegations in the SCN were denied and the proposals contained therein were contested. In adjudication of the disputes, the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the above demand of duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) and Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty of equal amount on them under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q apart from imposing redemption fines in lieu of confiscation of the seized goods. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. counsel for the appellants submits that the demand of duty is based solely on the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Order No. 1028/2002, dated 13-9-2002 in Appeal No. E/185/97 [Alagappa Cements (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Trichy [2002 (148) E.L.T. 1220 (T)]. Ld. Counsel has also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner v. Elgi Equipments Ltd., 2001 (128) E.L.T. 52 (S.C.) in support of his argument in relation to penalty under Section 11AC. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner and submits that the case law cited by ld. Counsel with regard to evidentiary value of private note books is not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as the entries contained in the note book recovered from the appellants were largely corroborated by Sri Gounder. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find much forc....