TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal without considering the contention of the appellants? (2) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not deducting the quantity of cement from the alleged quantity of surreptitious removal on which duty has already been paid by the appellants accepting removal without payment of duty? (3) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in imposing penalty more than the duty evaded?" In the present case the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Commisioner Central Excise, Allahabad. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacutre of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tarrif Act, 1985 and w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... follow up proceedings, and at the factory premises the person, namely, a cashier and authorised signatory of the appellant company was present and on demand the said authorised representative produced a invoice book which was issued up to serial no. 241 dated 14.08.2002. When the departmental personal confronted with the 'duplicate for transporter copy' of invoice no. 242 dated 15.08.2002, which was resumed from the possession of the truck driver, the authorised signatory has admitted that the said invoice no. 242 dated 15.08.2002 has been issued under his signature for clearance of 360 bags of cement. The authorised signatory has produced a 'parallel invoice book' at the factory from which the invoice no. 242 dated 15.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 10 and 11 of the Rules. The adjudicating authority has also imposed the personal penalty of the same amount against the director of the company vide order dated 31.08.2004. The order in original of the adjudicating authority has been challenged by the appellant company before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the entire material as well as the submission of the appellant and the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority and thereafter he has concluded that the proceedings adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner are competent enough however he has reduced the penalty both on the company as well as the director to the tune of Rs. 2,66,272/- e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d excess stock should have been 572 bags instead of 932 bags calculated by the Central Excise Officers. The 360 bags of cement seized out side the factory should not have been taken into consideration while making the physical verification of the stock. The appellant further submit that provisionally released goods have been cleared after payment of duty and after accounting for in Central Excise records, therefore, the same should have been considered and redemption fine should have been imposed proportionately as the redemption is too high". On the other hand, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the department has submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the issue in detail and has further elaborately mentioned the det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en well admitted by Shri P.S. Chaturvedi, the authorised signatory of the appellant No. 1". Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue has also submitted that no question of law is involved in the present appeal as such the authorities below as well as the CESTAT have clearly recorded the finding of fact and in fact it is admitted case of the appellant company that the company was involved in evasion of duty which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant company as such is admitted to some extent. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below as well as the order impugned of the CESTAT. In fact the appellant company has failed to show any deduction a....