TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re of Goa brand of gutkha. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officer on 14.06.2006 who conducted various checks and verifications. Simultaneously, the office premises of the present appellant was also visited by the Excise officers who found 130 plastic bags in the said premises, the same were opened and found to be containing pouches of Goa brand gutkha total valued at Rs. 24.57 lakhs. Statement of Shri Rakesh Aggarwal, Manager of the present appellant was recorded wherein he submitted that the said bags have been received only on previous date i.e. 13.6.2006 without the cover of invoice / challan. 2. The present impugned order confirmed the demand against the main noticee Sunrise Food Products which was also challenged befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh them. This plea is only for the sake of argument and hence needs no discussion. The only inference that can be drawn on the basis of documentary evidence that M/s. Moongipa Roadways were transporting „Goa‟ Gutkha manufactured by M/s. SFP only which were on different facts. In cases of clandestine removal one has to go by the facts of a given case and judicially no generalization can be made. I therefore, hold that cited case law do not in any way diminish the evidentiary value of material on records. I find that in respect of M/s. Moongipa Roadways the statement of Shri Rakesh Aggarwal dated 13.2.2007 had confessed that there was a recovery of 130 bags of Goa Gutkha from their premises and these goods were booked by Shri San....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h M/s. Sunrise Food Products in transportation of clandestine removed goods." 6. The appellants contention that they are neither involved in the allegations of clandestine removal by Sunrise Food Corporation nor is there any evidence to that effect. Admittedly, 130 bundles of goods delivered to their office by the said manufacturers were sealed and were opened by the officers to find out that goods therein were gutkha and removed clandestinely. The appellant had not booked the said consignment for transportation, in the absence of invoices/ suppliers documents. As such, the appellants were totally unaware of the fact of non-payment of duty on the said goods and as such, no penalty can be imposed upon them under Rule 26. The Commissioner ha....