TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Tariff. On the basis of an intelligence, Central Excise officers conducted checks in the factory premises on 21.09.2001. During the checks, certain records were resumed from the factory and at their Delhi Sale Depot in the follow-up searches. Examination of these records revealed that one sale invoice book of their depot bearing SI. No. 213 dt. 09.09.2001 to 225 dt. 19.09.2001 recovered and resumed from their factory on 21.09.2001 in which duplicate invoices of the same serial number 217, 220, 223 and 224 having different dates, quantity/value and names of the consignees were found. Thus there were two invoices each of Sr. No. 217, 220, 223 & 224. The said invoice book recovered from the factory was without pre-printed serial n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....micals India Ltd., Hubli. 58,695.00 9. 224 dt. 17.09.2001 1,37,250.00 M/s Safex Chemicals India Ltd., Giddarbaha (PB). 21,960.00 10. 225 dt. 19.09.2001 2,71,410.00 -do- 43,425.00 Total 33,27,015/- 5,32,322.00/- The statements of Sh. Mohinder Paul Bajar, Manager of the party, Sh. S.K. Jindal, Managing Director, Sh. Harish Chander, Chemist, Sh. Janardan Sharma Production Manager and Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Accountant and authorized signatory were recorded. A show cause notice was issued, which was adjudicated wherein the demand of Rs. 30,80,848.00/- along with interest thereon confirmed and penalty of Rs. 30,80,848/- was imposed on the appellant No.1 under Section 11AC of Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - 015 (325) ELT 106 (Tri. Del) 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He also mentioned that Sh. Mohinder Pal Bajar continued with the appellant still 2006. He also stated that there was no retraction of any statements and no cross-examination was sought by the appellants of any witnesses. 5. Heard the parties and perused the records. 6. I find that there are two parts of the entire demand: (i) Demand of Rs. 5,32, 322/- relates to parallel invoices issued by the appellant no.1 and statements of various persons, (ii) Remaining demand of Rs. 25,48,526/- relates to demand arrived at on the basis of batch register, RG-1 register and various statements. I find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period for this demand is also upheld. In respect of this part of demand, the penalty on the appellant of equivalent amount of Rs. 5,32,323/- under Section 11AC is also upheld. Prorata penalties of Rs. 20,000/- on Sh. Mohinder Paul Bajar, Manager and of Rs. 3,000/- on Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Accountant, are therefore imposable under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 for their role in these fraudulent clearances. 7. From the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate, I find that the rest of the demand is mainly based on figures in the Batch Register and the statements of various company officials. While the appellants have pleaded that there was selective reading of the Batch Register and no finding have been given by the adjudicating aut....