2019 (6) TMI 1349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chewing Tobacco. On 23/02/2005, the officers of Central Excise intercepted one truck loaded with the said goods. Driver of the truck informed the officers that the same were loaded from the factory of the appellant. One Shri Ajay Kumar Shah, who was accompanying the truck presented the challan dated 23/02/2005 in duplicate issued by appellant's factory located at Noida covering consignment in question. 2. Subsequently the officers visited the appellant's factory and conducted various checks and verification. Shortage in the stock of the final product as also the raw material was detected. Shri Rattan Kumar Bhalla accountant of the Company in his statement could not give any valid reasons for such shortages and deposited the duty of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../-. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed upon the manufacturing unit and Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Rattan Kumar Bhalla accountant and Rs. 1,000/- on Shri Mangey Ram truck owner. On appeal, the said decision of the Additional Commissioner stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 5. On going through the impugned order, I find that the Revenue has confiscated the seized goods loaded in the intercepted truck on the ground that the same has been cleared without payment of duty. However it is on record that the said goods were accompanied by a challan and the Central Excise invoices, has been issued by the appellant, which was found during the course of their visit in the factory, though, the same was not accompanying ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the time of visit of the officers. Reference can be made to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ludhiana vs. Anand Founders & Engineers 2016 (331) E.L.T. 340 (P&H) as also to Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Daman vs. Nissan Thermoware Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (266) E.L.T. 45 (Guj.) and to Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. Minakshi Castings 2011 (274) E.L.T. 180 (All.). As such, I find that Central Excise officers have not presented any evidence to show removal of the said goods, the demand of duty cannot be upheld on the basis of only shortages....