2009 (10) TMI 784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;    Penalty - Rs. 10 lakhs u/r 25. (e)     Personal penalties - Rs. 20 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 1 lakh on 4 employees of the company. 2. The confirmation of the demand and consequent penalties has arisen on the ground that the appellant had evaded duty by clandestinely removing the goods. The adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that there was clandestine removal, on the basis of the consumption of power per MT of MS ingots based upon the records of the appellant for the earlier period and for the period in question. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that the period involved in this case is from May, 2002 to September, 2006 and the confirmation of demand has arisen only on the bas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at there is a clandestine removal then the cost of production will automatically worked out in which case the appellant has already discharged the duty liability in excess than what was sought to be demanded. He would also submitted that the ld. Commissioner has earlier ordered for special audit under Section Rule 14A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 and it is seen from the said cost audit report that the total cost of the factory remains the same. 4. Ld. Jt. CDR on the other hand would submit that the appellant had not maintained any records as regards the incoming and outgoing material at the gate register. It is her submission that the unit of such a high sales turnover should not maintain the....