TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise, Kolhapur. By the impugned order, following has been held:- "ORDER i) I confirm the demand of Rs. 1,29,16,409/- (Rs. One Crore Twenty Nine Lacs Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Nine only) under Sec. 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount already paid of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, is appropriated against the confirmed demand. ii) I order to pay interest at appropriate rate on the confirmed demand under Sec. 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,29,16,409/- (Rs. One Crore Twenty Nine Lacs Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Nine only) on M/s Shreyas Intermediates Ltd. (100% EOU) under sec. 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Further I give an option to pay 25% penalty i.e. Rs. 32,29,102/-, provided if t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ine thousand sixteen thousand four hundred nine only (BCD+CVD+Edn.Cess+SAD)] as applicable should not be demanded and recovered from them in accordance with provisions of proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest thereon in accordance with provisions of Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. ii) the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (rupees one crore only) paid voluntarily vide Cenvat Credit Accounts detailed in Table No. 15 herein-above should not be adjusted against the amount demanded under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. iii) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 24. Further M/s Shreyas Intermediates Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng, the case will be decided exparte on the basis of evidences available on record." 2.3 This show cause notice was replied by the appellant vide letter received in the office of the adjudicating authority on 24.08.2010. Thereafter the matter was adjudicated by the impugned order. Aggrieved appellants are in appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellants (none appeared for the appellant in appeal No. E/1039/2012) and Shri Deepak Bhilegaonkar, Additional Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. 3.2 Arguing for the appellants, learned counsel referred to various documents such as adjudication order and submitted that though in response to the show cause notice, they have made elaborate sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of input in the guise of final product (i) shortage of input and the final product and (iii) removal of goods more than once under the same invoice, are charges of clandestine removal which is a serious charge not proved by merely writing paragraph in the show cause notice or on the basis of statement of employee or of third person or on the basis of private diary but are to be established on the basis of the affirmative evidence or positive evidence and also supported by corroborative evidence and should not be based on the suspicion or assumption or presumption and prayed that in absence of any tangible evidence with respect to the above charges based on guess work of the visiting officer, requested to vacate the charges leveled agains....