2019 (1) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ackaged Drinking water under CETH 22 of the first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amended by Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2005. A visit was made to by the department officers, the seizure of goods valued at Rs. 91,872/- with duty involvement of Rs. 11,455/- was put into effect. As those were manufactured and kept in the unregistered premises with the intention to remove them clandestinely without payment of Central Excise duty, by way of misusing the SSI Exemption Notification No.08/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003. During said visit several records/documents of the party, including the register for issuing BST goods (BST register, for brevity) were resumed. The said BST register shows the quantities off appellant's dif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osition of penalty of Rs. 46,35,990/- for the period 2011-12 to June 2013, Rs. 4,94,997/- for the period July 2013 to March 2014, Rs. 18,09,206/- for the period April 2014 to December, 2014 under Section (11AC) of the Act. He also imposed the penalty of Rs. 7000/- under Rule of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand has been confirmed on the basis of Actual clearance shown by the party as well as clearance shown in the BST register. Aggrieved with the order, party filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & CGST, Lucknow. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & CGST, Lucknow has discussed the case in detail and inter alia observed that:- a) Although, the register was recovered from the party's premises but the party....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....001 (134) ELT 811. 2. ESSVEE POLYMERS (P) LTD. reported in 2004 (165) ELT 0291. 3. DUROLAM LTD. reported in 2007 (212) ELT 429. 4. T.G.L. POSHAK CORPORATION reported in 2002 (140) ELT 187. 5. SHARMA CHEMICALS reported in 2001 (130) ELT 271. 6. RHINO RUBBERS PVT. LTD. reported in 1996 (85) ELT 260. d) The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that it is settled law that the demand could not sustained only on the basis of private register recovered from the premises. This case is even more strong footing than the case laws stated supra, in the terms that it is not proved beyond doubt that register was being maintained either by party or by any of his employees. He further added that since the value of finished goods manufactured by the party ....