TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese three appeals can be disposed of with a common order, since the challenge in these appeals is to the same final order dated 16th February 2017 made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch, Mumbai (Tribunal). 3] The appellants in Central Excise Appeal (CEXA) Nos.163 of 2018 and 165 of 2018 are the Ex-Assistant Manager (Excise) and Ex-Vice President of M/s. Kopran Ltd. respectively, which is the appellant in CEXA No. 162 of 2018. For all these reasons, it is only appropriate that these appeals are disposed of by a common order. 4] Mr. Vishal Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, proposes the following question of law, which according to him, are substantial questions of law involved in thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was issued to Kopran Limited demanding excise duty, interests and penalty, inter alia, on the ground that excisable goods were removed from its factory premises to the factory premises of DPPL, without payment of excise duty and compliance with prescribed legal procedures. The penalties were also proposed upon the appellants in CEXA Nos. 163 of 2018 and 165 of 2018. 6] The Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 9th November 2004, after following the principles of natural justice confirmed the demand, ordered confiscation of the seized goods with an option of redemption on payment of fine. The appellants' filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and they came to be rejected. The appellants filed further appeals to the Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....work basis. He submits that batch numbers of the goods as well as the other details were available and all this material militates against any inference on clandestine removal of the goods with an intention to evade payment of excise duty. 9] Mr. Agrawal submits that some minor discrepancies could hardly be said to be sufficient to infer clandestine removal of goods, particularly when in the year 2001-2002, the Rules did not provide for any prescribed procedures for removal of such goods. Mr. Agrawal, therefore, urges admission of these appeals upon aforesaid question, which he submits are substantial questions of law. 10] Mr. Sham Walve, learned counsel for respondent No.2, defends the impugned orders on the basis of reasons reflecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis. The record indicates that Kopran Limited has a well organised system for documentation, when it comes to record of receipt of raw materials, production, stores and despatch. However, when it comes to goods in question, such documentation, is just not to be found. Even contemporaneous records such as entries in loading Register, Gate outward Register and Returnable Register make no entries in relation to the goods in question. This is certainly a circumstance which is required to be held against the appellants. Therefore, even if we were to accept Mr.Agrawal's case that there were no prescribed procedures under the Cenvat Rules or that there was no requirement of removal of such goods only under a cover of challan, that by itself ....