TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o March, 2006 were recovered and it was found that there were no corresponding central excise invoices or any other evidence to show that goods cleared under these delivery challans were cleared on payment of duty. On the same day, the duty payable on the value of the goods cleared under these delivery challans was calculated as Rs. 2,58,923/- and interest. Rs. 9,451/- and the same was paid on the same day by the appellant company. Subsequently show cause notice was issued on 1-9-2006 and in the adjudication and appellate proceedings the duty amount and the interest paid by the appellant have been appropriated towards the liability and penalties have been imposed on both the appellants. Hence the appeals. 2. Learned consultant on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In this case even though the learned consultant submitted during the arguments that there was a dispute between the director and the company and by the time show cause notice was issued or during subsequent period, the director had left the company but no evidence to support his claim was made available. I find even in reply to show cause notice, there is no retraction of the statement. In fact the director has only tried to avoid penalty by claiming that he had not dealt with the goods physically and therefore penalty under Rule 26 could not have been imposed on him. The company also has not disassociated itself from the director. Even now I find that before me also both the director and the company are represented by the consultant. This ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision is relevant. Similarly, another decision of the Hon'ble High Court submitted by the appellant is also not relevant since that also relates to the same issue. In the case of Matsyodari Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 176 (Bom.) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that in that case there was no suppression of fact since appellant had claimed wrong cenvat/modvat credit and had paid the same before issue of show cause notice and wrong credit was availed during previous management of the facts of the case are different. Even though learned DR produced several decisions in support of his contention, I do not feel they need to go into all those cases since on the facts of the case I find that sufficient evidence has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 2006 (196) E.L.T. 297, in which the Learned Single Member had observed in para 4 of the order that, the statement of the partner admitting the shortages was itself an end of investigation inasmuch as there was no further requirement of any investigation. He also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in Customs Appeals No. 754 & 759 of 1998 decided on 12-1-2007, for the proposition that, notwithstanding the retraction the confession which amounted to admission would bind the maker of the confession. 50. There can be no dispute over the proposition that admitted facts need not be proved and that the confession would be binding on the maker of the confession. The confession by the partner of the assessee and by the employees of the ass....