AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the bond and the bank for realization of the redemption fine. It is further ordered that appropriate Central Excise duty should be paid on these goods at the time of clearance from the factory. (ii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lac only) on M/s AIL (M) Jaipur under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; (iii) O order confiscation of the seized trucks bearing Regn. No. HR-55-C 0507 and HR 38 K-5218 under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 as applicable under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide Notification No. 68/63 CE dated 4.5.1963. Since the trucks have already been released provisionally, I impose redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- on each truck (Rs. Two lac on each truck) in lieu of confiscation of the said trucks under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. If the redemption fine is not paid within 90 days of the receipt of this order, I order for enforcement of the bond and the bank for realization of the redemption fine. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lac only) on M/s Shree Karni Kripa Road Lines, Jaipur under Rule 26 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for their act of facilitati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Form of the department of commercial taxes, Govt. of U.P. (4) Particulars of invoices were attached with reply to the show cause notice with respect to goods found lying at the appellant's premises. (5) There are no inculpatory statements of anyone. If the impugned goods were actually manufactured in Jaipur, then some loose production and unused packing material were bound to be available in the factory also because the Revenue's case is that the appellant was affixing the sticker of M/s AML Pant Nagar on the goods in the Jaipur factory but during search of the factory premises no such things were found. (6) No evidence of procurement of unaccounted raw material, packing material, wastage during manufacturing process of the confiscated goods has been recovered/produced. (7) Appellant is generally centrally procuring raw material and packing material for all the group companies for their benefit due to economy of scale (8) No enquiry with the buyers w.r.t past clearances was made. (9) There was no intention to evade payment of duty inasmuch as the appellant was having a fully functional unit working under Area Based Exemption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is several hundred kilometres away inasmuch as they had no receipt of toll tax nor any evidence of fuelling the trucks on the way. It is important to keep in mind that the truck drivers have to give account of expenses enroute for reimbursements of the toll paid and diesel refilled on the way etc. and therefore non possession of toll receipts or the diesel purchase bills clearly shows that the trucks had not come from Pant Nagar. As a matter of fact, one of the drivers in his statement even claimed that he got the diesel filled at Dharuhera and Gurgaon but he did not possess the bills and that he did not possess the receipt of toll tax as he torn them on the way. It defies credibility that a driver would tear the toll receipts which are also required for accountal by transport agency/truck owners. Further the distance between Gurgaon and Dharuhera is hardly 50 km and no truck requires refuelling at such short intervals. Further one of the drivers stated that he came to Jaipur on 18.3.2012 at about 10.30 AM and found the appellant's godown locked and therefore brought the goods to the factory for safety reasons. The second driver also stated that he reached Jaipur on 19.3.2012 at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are its own documents and do not in any way dilute the foregoing analysis of available evidence. 6. It is thus clear that the appellant indulged in modus operandi of manufacturing goods at Jaipur and put labels to show their manufacture by Pant Nagar unit to evade payment of duty. Shri Mahipal Gupta, Managing Director and Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager actively involved themselves in this modus operandi. The truck drivers also colluded with the appellant - assesse inasmuch as they tried to weave a cock and bull story claiming to have brought the goods from Pant Nagar when they were fully aware that they had not brought goods from Pant Nagar and had taken empty trucks into the factory for loading the impugned goods. Thus the trucks were correctly held liable to confiscation. The said trucks drivers could not have colluded in this modus operandi in the manner aforesaid without the consent and knowledge of the transport company and therefore the transport company is also liable to penalty along with the drivers. 6. In the light of the foregoing analysis, I find that the case is established against the appellants at least on the yardstick of preponderance probability. ....