TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in the manufacture of Toothpaste, Shampoo and Shaving Cream etc., classifiable under Chapter 33 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 6th/ 7th March 2007, the Central Excise officer of HQrs (Preventive) visited the factory premises of the Appellant No.1 and prepared a stock verification report in the presence of two independent panchas and Appellant No.2, claimed as Director of Appellant No.1. It was recorded shortage of finished goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,63,190/-. The said Central Excise officers also recorded the statement of Appellant No.2 on 07.3.2007. 3. A show cause notice dated 02.6.2009 was issued proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty on the Appellant No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the stock verification was conducted on 07th March 2007 in the presence of the production Incharge of the appellant firm and Appellant No.2 who claimed as Director of the appellant No.1. No dispute was raised by Appellant No.1 during investigation. In reply to the show cause notice, dated 23.2.2010, the appellant informed that Shri Hakim Thanawala has no connection with the Appellant firm. Hence, the stand taken by the appellant can not be accepted. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that Appellant No.1 is a registered partnership firm by a partnership deed dated 21.08.1998. The appellant firm is registered with the Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t No.1 and also not having any position in their factory named M/s. Personna Cosmetics. He is merely a relative to the partners of Appellant No.1. It is also stated that Shri Hakim Thanawala is an employee of M/s. K.M. Enterprises, situated in the same compound. M/s. Personna Cosmetics is a partnership concern and not a Limited or Private Limited concern and therefore, the claim of Shri Hakim Thanawala being a Director of appellant firm does not arise. Shri Hakim Thanawala is never a Director of the Appellant No.1 and in a partnership firm, there cannot be any Director, as it is governed by the partners. Therefore, the entire demand of duty on the shortage of the finished goods, based on the statement of Shri Hakim Thanawala, cannot be sust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im Thanawala is not concerned with the appellant firm. It seen from the show cause notice that Central Excise officers visited the appellant s premises on the basis of intelligence and thereafter how they accepted Shri Hakim Thanawala as Director of the Company when the appellant firm is registered with the Central Excise authorities as partnership firm. It is strange that the Central Excise officers visited the premises of the assessee and conducted stock verification and recorded the statement without verifying the identity of a person. There is no material available on record to establish that Shri Hakim Thanawala has any connection with the appellant firm. It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Tribunal that onus lies with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval. 11. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue relied upon various decisions which are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, are as under:- (i) Ureka Polymers Limited vs. CCE, New Delhi 2001 (127) ELT 618 (Tri. Del.) : It was found that production slips maintained for 15 days showing higher production on some dates than those recorded in RG-1 register and vice-versa, evidenced by statement of their suppliers and entries in their registers, note book and ledgers. Statements were recorded over a period of time of various persons including the assessee where they have admitted the clandestine removal of the goods. (ii) In the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs. UOI 1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC) : ....