2015 (1) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty amount of Rs. 18,17,159/- related to the allegation of discovery of parallel invoices from the factory of the appellant and the duty demand of Rs. 29,30,148/- related to the demand arose out of clandestine removal of goods alleged to have been made suppressing production as found from the slips recovered in the course of search. Further, penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Shishir Agarwal, Director and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Rajiv Sharma, Manager. Both the penalties were imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 . 2. When the investigating team made a visit to the factory of the appellant on 20.09.2002, they recovered certain invoices therefrom which disclosed the goods alleged to have been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri Hemant Bajaj, ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that:-             (i) The same officer, who issued the Show Cause Notice, he adjudicated the demand, which is contrary to law.          (ii) The documents recovered remained disputed and the originals were not produced before the appellant.         (iii) The opinion of the hand-writing experts placed by the appellant was discarded.         (iv) The slips appearing at page 181 and page 238 to 262 has no relevance to the demand raised during the adjudication is arbitrary. 6.1 On the other hand, ld. JCDR s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the relevant slips in the paper book but has drawn attention to different documents at page 181 onwards as well as page 338-362, which are irrelevant. Ld. adjudicating authority considered the relevant evidence and granting due opportunity to the appellant to explain its case made the adjudication resulting in demand of Rs. 29,30,148/- on the count of detected slips. 7. Heard both sides and perused the record. 8.1 So far as recovery of parallel invoices are concerned, that was undisputed to be belonging to the appellant. The pulpable plea of different hand-writing over the documents was not proved. When hand-writing experts known to law opined against the appellant, there was no necessity to rely upon any other expert, who was not rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the Show Cause Notice is concerned, that relates to the loose slips discovered in the course of investigation. These slips recorded production made by appellant on different dates. Such fact was not rebutted showing irrelevancy thereof in evidence leading any evidence to the contrary. The appellant could not repel the allegation of Revenue that such slips resulted in evasion of duty to the above extent. Nothing could be either proved to demonstrate that those slips were not recovered from the factory nor there was absence of live link between the slips and the appellant. Also, contents of the slips showing the nature of goods manufactured by the appellants could not be ruled out. Investigation found that the slips were intimately connecte....