2018 (1) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER Per S.K. Mohanty: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacture of excisable goods namely, bio-pesticides and bio- fertilizers, falling under Chapter sub-heading Nos.3808.90 an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed into the matter and confirmed Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 99,089/- alongwith interest and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. On appeal against the adjudication order dated 29.06.2007, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2008 has upheld the adjudged demand. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that during the course of i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for confirmation of the adjudged demand. To support such stand, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of, T.G.L Poshak Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2002 (140) E.L.T. 187 (Tri.- Chennai), Rajasthan Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2005 (183) E.L.T. 101 (Tri.- Del.), Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmadabad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n whether the alleged goods were received by them. Thus, in absence of proper substantiation of the fact regarding clandestine removal of goods, the charges cannot be framed merely based on the rough pad and irregular maintenance of the RG-1 records. I find support from the decisions of this Tribunal relied upon by the ld. Advocate for the appellant, holding that charge of clandestine removal base....