TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant was found. On being asked, appellant stated that amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- belonged to his friend Shri. Pawan Drolia and the remaining cash of Rs. 6,30,000/- belonged to him, his mother and his wife and had kept in office for business transaction. Further investigation was carried out statements were recorded under Section 14 wherein he stated that the said cash was from the proceedings of the excisable goods cleared without payment of duty and without cover of central excise invoice. He further submits that cash of Rs. 6,66,430 were received on 24-3-2005 from M/s. Vikas Steel Traders as payment for sales of 23.970 M.T. CTD bars to them without payment of duty. The said cash is not reflected in the financial records of M/s. Balaji ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the appellant cannot be conclusively said to have received as proceed against clandestine removal of goods, therefore cash seized from the office of the appellant is not liable for confiscation consequently no penalty under Rule 26/27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh Vs. Patran Pipes (P) Ltd [2010(261)ELT 1173(Tri. Del.)] (b) Bhagwan R. Daswani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai[2010(262)ELT 822(Tri. Mum)] 3. On the other hand, Shri. M.P. Dixit, Ld Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that appellant in his confessional statements accepted that cash lying with hi....