TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacturing units of M/s Jain Group of Companies were engaged in the manufacture of copper wires, falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and indulged into evasion of Central Excise duty by way of clandestine removal, searches were conducted by the officers of Anti Evasion of the Central Excise Department on 18.11.2011 at the factory premises of M/s Ashoka Wire Industries (Appellant No.1), M/s Kishan Lal Jain & Sons (Appellant No.2) and other connected persons. On scrutiny of the statutory records vis-a-vis the physical stock taking of goods in the premises of Appellant No.-1, it was detected that finished goods consisting of 10mm Copper wire of 2386 Kgs. and 16 nos. of wires of 336 Kgs. and raw material i.e. Copper ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at Rs. 27,84,920/- were confiscated, with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Further, Central Excise Duty demand of Rs. 8,38,671/- was confirmed alongwith interest. Besides, penalties of Rs. 8,38,671/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- were imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 respectively on the Appellant No.1. In respect of the Appellant No.2, seized goods (finished, semi-finished and raw-material) collectively valued at Rs. 39,76,270/- were confiscated under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 25 ibid, with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Further, goods worth Rs. 1,01,350/- wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng in the factory. He also referred to the letters dated 21.11.2011 and 22.03.2012 of the Appellant, addressed to the Department, informing about availability of balance copper scrap lying redhot in furnace on 18.11.2011, which were not addressed by the authorities below. He further submitted that the confessional statement of Shri Ashok Jain obtained involuntarily under duress, was not sufficient to confirm the demands against the Appellant. It is his submission that in absence of any independent and tangible evidence of removal, transportation, collection of payments etc., the charges of clandestine removal cannot be leveled against the Appellant. 2.2 The ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant No.2 has referred to the Panchnama place....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of Rs. 17,51,768/-, the ld. Advocate submitted that adequate explanation/documents were furnished by the Appellant before the Department, which were not considered while passing the adjudication order. He further submitted that the statement dated 18.11.2011 of Shri Satish Kashyap does not support clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods, inasmuch as, description of goods, rate, value, name of buyer/ seller, mode of conveyance, method of payment etc. were not available in the seized records. Thus, he submitted that without any independent corroborative evidence of alleged clandestine removal, duty demand cannot be confirmed against the Appellant. 2.3 The ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant No.3 submitted that since the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n considered by the authorities below and the adjudged demand was confirmed solely based on the allegations levelled in the show cause notice. I find that except the confessional statement of Shri Ashok Jain, the Department had not recorded any supporting statement of the workers or supervisor of the factory about manufacture and removal of such huge quantity of goods, which were alleged as removed clandestinely. Further, the Department has not brought on any evidence about the place of recovery of the goods and the person, who authored the entries in the diary recovered on 18.11.2011. I find that except the admission of the appellant in the statement, no other independent and tangible evidence of removal, transportation, means of transport....