2006 (7) TMI 430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... W.W. Yarn was loaded. On demanding the Rickshaw Puller could not produce any duty paying documents and admitted that the said yarn was loaded from the factory premises of the appellant. The authorities took the cycle rickshaw back to the factory premises wherein the officers confronted the partner of the appellant with the rickshaw loaded with W.W. yarn and on questioning admitted having removed intercepted goods without payment of duty and without any documents. In further follow up action indicated finished excisable goods being found excess than the recorded balance in the statutory books. The said goods were seized by the authorities. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of duty, confiscation of the seized finished ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  Parle Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 585 (S.C.); (v)     Manindra Chandra Dey v. CEGAT - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 (Cal.); (vi)   Suvarna Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 148 (Tribunal); (vii)  Miracle Foil (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 513 (Tribunal); (viii) K.I. Pavunny v. Asst. Collr. (HQ), C. Ex. Collectorate, Cochin - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.); 4. Learned D.R. on the other hand submits that retraction of the statement of the partner was belated and is an after thought. It is his submission that in this case the intention of the appellants to remove the goods without payment of duty is proved beyond doubt. 5. Considered th....