2007 (1) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Twenty Five Thousand only) imposed upon Shri Abhay Agrawal, respondent No. 2, Director of the Company. The respondent No. 1 filed the Cross Objection against the impugned order, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty of Rs. 8340.00, imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 6000.00 and penalty of Rs. 5000.00. 2. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. It appears from record that on 27-12-06 the respondents requested for adjournment as the learned advocate was unwell and adjourned to 10-1-07. But, on 10-1-07 none appeared on behalf of respondent and the matter was adjourned to 22-1-07 (weekly list) and notice was issued to the respondents. So, the appeal is taken up ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of M/s. Gupta Chemicals on 21st August 1998: During the course of search, 18 drums of DBP in 5250 Kgs. were found, which were received without any bills/invoice. Shri Bharat Bhushan of M/s. Gupta Chemicals in his statement dated 30th November 1998 stated that Shri Abhay Agarwal respondent No. 2 herein took the order from him and it was agreed that he would dispatch the consignment and after its receipt, the papers accompanying the goods would be destroyed. He also stated that under the impression of receiving the goods at lower cost they had agreed with the method suggested by the respondent No. 2, Shri Abhay Agarwal. Further, respondent No. 2, in his statement before the Central Excise Officers stated that they issued seven invoices in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tention that no goods were cleared in respect of the said invoices. So, the adjudicating authority rightly observed that the goods were cleared to M/s. Gupta Chemicals without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the department has not established that they had cleared two different goods namely one set of the goods to the local parties in whose name invokes were raised and another set of goods to M/s. Gupta Chemicals, New Delhi without payment of duty and hence the demand of duty is incorrect. I find, that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) at this regard is totally erroneous. In fact, the department established a case of removal of goods to M/s. Gupta Chemicals without payment of duty. Therefore, it is the duty....