2011 (6) TMI 644

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... remaining duty and penalty. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent is engaged in the manufacture of CTD bars falling under Chapter 73 of CETA, 1985. The Central Excise ThaneI Commissionerate booked a case against the respondent on the basis of certain private record retrieved from Shri Sanjay Mittal, a broker. Statements of Shri Sanjay Mittal and Shri Mahendra Pal S. Tank, an authorized signatory of the respondent and Shri Mahendraprasad Gupta, transporter were recorded. A showcause notice was issued against the respondent and its authorized signatory. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,46,638/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty on the respondent and also imposed a penalty of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5 14. No Number 12050 18-3-2005 The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), however, upheld the demand only in the case of vehicle No. MH-04-AL-4044. He has also not taken into consideration the confessional statement given by Shri Sanjay Mittal the broker. The ld. JDR submitted that the respondent have not challenged the confirmation of demand of Rs. 27,099/-, interest and equal amount of penalty. Therefore the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order is not sustainable. The ld. JDR also placed reliance on Tribunal decision in the case of Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Hyderabad II reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T. 263 (Tri. - Bang.) wherein it was held clandestine activity at best can be established only by circumstantial evidenc....