2013 (5) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds and cleared it without accounting and without paying excise duty thereon. The other appellants are dealers in such goods against whom the charge is that they bought such unaccounted non-duty paid goods from the first appellant. 3. The charges against the appellants are based on the following evidences : (i) Search was conducted at the factory of the premises on 29-4-2003. Excess of 800 hose pipes and shortage of 11,200 auto rubber parts and 3858 Oil seals were noticed as compared to accounted stock. 800 hose pipes were seized. (ii) Search was conducted at the sales depot of the first appellant at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi operated in the name of "Rider Sales Corporation" from where also goods without any duty paying documents were seized. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rider Sales Corporation and set aside penalties on those two entities but upheld confiscation of goods seized from 7 premises and penalties on the concerned persons. After proceeding before the First Appellate Authority the issues contested in these appeals are about the following : S. No. Name of Appellant Duty (Rs.) Fine (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1. Jaswant Rubber (P) Ltd 2,07,579 -- 2,075,79 + 50,000 2. Arneja Motors Stores 16,000 10,000 3. Ravi Grover 6,000 10,000 4. T.S. Dealers 75,000 10,000 5. Bhatia Motors 12,000 10,000 6. Shalimar Motors 8,000 10,000 7. K. K. Sales Corporation 15,000 10,000 5. On behalf of the first appellant the counsel submits that on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He says that he had made sales to the dealers in question and the seized goods appear to be out of goods sold by him to the said dealers. The Appellants submitted copies of invoices evidencing such sales. It has not been proved that the seized goods were not from duty paid goods. 9. They did not have any agreement with the dealers to act as stockists but they were only buying the goods mostly from the first appellant and selling in the market. 10. The ld. AR for Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given the reason for dropping the confiscation of goods seized from M/s. Rider Sales Corporation. It appears from Para 12 of the order that it is because there was no proposal in the SCN for its confiscation. 11. He also poi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first appellant as also goods found at the premises of the dealers without duty paying documents. The show cause notice does not deal with any records seized during the investigation and whether such records demonstrate unaccounted clearance. The case is built on the fact that the dealers did not have duty paying documents and based on statements of dealers. The statement of director Shri Vinod Arora given on 25-6-2003 talks of document number 272 from file No. 2 recovered from the office premises and document number 27 in the same file. There is an admission that amount "A" shows goods sold against invoices and amount "B" shows goods sold without invoices. It is not known why these are not mentioned as relied upon documents in the SCN.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the proceedings below there is lack of clarity about the legal status of the entity "Rider Sales Corporation". The issue whether the entity is essentially the same as JRPL or not is coming out clearly. There is no pleading on this in the appeal. In the SCN it is stated to be a sales office of JRPL. However the office has been made a party separately and their reply also was received separately. A pleading that there was no notice issued to M/s. Rider Sales Corporation for confiscation of goods appears to be accepted by Commissioner (Appeal) and revenue is not in appeal against the order. So at this stage there is nothing to be done on dropping of fine and penalty on this count by Commissioner (Appeals). But I note that he has not given....