2019 (2) TMI 1813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ility of Rs. 61,022/- on sale of 2.86 MT of phenol along with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) is assailed by the appellant in this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant industry is a manufacturer exporter of speciality chemicals for which it imported phenol against advance authorisation vide Bill of Entry No. 192907, dated 24-5-2007. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence did an investigation in the appellant's industry and verified stock register. They found that on 1-6-2007 quantity of 3800 kg. of phenol was diverted vide sale Bill No. 0321 and on 8-9-2007 a quantity of 2860 kg. was diverted by sale Bill No. 0866. Appellant was put to show cause notice, matter was adjudicated upon and the Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner who dropped the first part of the demand of duty against sale of 3.8 MT on 1-6-2007 on the ground of availability of adequate duty paid quantity of phenol on the day of sale but did not apply the same principle to the second sale of 2.860 MT despite the fact that on the day of second sale, stock balance was more than the total duty free stock received by the appellant but only taken into consideration the confessional statements of the partner and others of the appellant's industry. He submitted that those were not voluntary confession and given under pressure exercised by DRI and in view of multiple investigation against the same group of persons as well as voluminous records involved in assessing the factual position, such statement w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ract copy containing seal of the DRI, on the day of sale of 2860 kg of phenol, the closing balance of phenol available with the appellant industry was 12.387 MT, as reveals from the said stock register extract and quantity of duty free stock, as pointed out by the appellant to be of 12.350 MT, has been reflected in the said register that has not been disputed by the respondent-department. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that balance stock available with the appellant was more than the duty free stock imported by it. A close scrutiny of the order of Commissioner of Customs, Goa at para 35 would reveal that on the same ground, duty demand of first sale of 3.8 MT on 1-6-2007 was waived off and the second sale was held to be dutiable on t....