2016 (5) TMI 1072

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n search and enquiry operations were carried out by the officers in August 2000 on the premise that the appellants have evaded payment of Central Excise duty on the goods cleared by them. The searches conducted in various business and residential premises, documents recovered and statements recorded from various persons formed the basis of the proceedings initiated against them by the Department. The proceedings concluded by issue of original order dated 31/03/2006. The order confirmed duty demand of Rs. 33,84,132/-; imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant; penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Shri Dev Jain, partner of the appellant firm and Rs. 5,00,000/- penalty on Shri Yogesh Jain, Manager of the appellant firm. On appeal, the Commissi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l in support of the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the whole case against the appellant is based on certain documents alleged to have been recovered from the residence premises of Shri J.B. Singh, an ex-employee of the respondent. Shri J.B. Singh was engaged in parallel business of manufacturing the very same type of auto parts manufactured by the respondent using the brand name of DLJM for which he has applied for patent in 1996 itself. The learned Counsel submitted that it is not clear from the show cause notice that how the Department came in possession of the alleged parallel invoices said to be in the custody of Shri J.B. Singh. There is no Panchnama or other evidence for recove....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne removal of excisable goods against the respondent. As briefly stated herein above, the charge of non-duty paid clearances were sought to be sustained mainly on the basis of certain parallel invoices recovered in the premises of an ex-employee, certain challans for clearance to job work, statements of ex-employee, job worker and two buyers of the finished goods. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had examined all the evidences available on record before arriving at his decision. Regarding statement of Shri Dev Jain and Shri Yogesh Jain he recorded that these were not categorical and specific. The finding in the impugned order with reference to the contents of 116 parallel invoices cannot be fau....