TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. - These three appeals are filed by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 476-478-CE/IND/APPL-1/03 dated 28-8-03. 2. Heard learned DR. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the appellant company o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he company. Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on Sh. Nijamuddin E. Indorewala and Rs. 50,000/- on Shri R.S. Pillai. (c) On appeal by the parties, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 28-8-2003 allowed the appeals. 4. Learned DR reiterated the findings and reasoning of the original authority. He submitted that the Commissioner was wrong in relying on the retraction given by Sh. Nijamud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on certain fax messages and statement of Sh. Nijamuddin E. Indorewala which was retracted later on and not by any corroborative evidence was proved the clandestine removal, the demand is not warranted because as per settled legal position, no demand can be raised for alleged removal of goods without any tangible/corroborative evidence. I also find that the statements recorded by the CE officers w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived by the buyers". 5.3 We find that demand has been raised relying on entries in computer floppy. We have not been shown that the said evidence was placed before the concerned official of the company for the purpose of enlisting their views/defence. The respondent submitted that some of the entries related to orders received by them but not executed. The inference by the original authority tha....