TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... removal of the goods during the period March to December, 1996 without payment of duty while penalty on other appellants had been imposed under Rule 209A of the Rules. The allegations of clandestine removal of the goods against the company had been based on the 14 packing slips and 4 GRs allegedly recovered from their factory premises on 6-3-97 at the time of checking by the officers of Central Excise. 3. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no tangible evidence to substantiate these allegations and to prove the actual removal of the goods by the company appellant No. 1 under these packing slips and GRs to appellants Nos. 3-4. The duty demand has been wrongly confirmed by raising assumptions and presumptions. The impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... packing slips were received by his son, Manish Agarwal from the company appellant No. 1. But his statement does not find corroboration from any other evidences. Even the statement of Manish Agarwal was never recorded during the investigation or adjudication proceedings to seek corroboration to the statement of J.K. Gupta. The record shows that J.K. Gupta was not even initially served with any show cause notice along with the company appellant No. 1, its director appellant No. 2, Praveen Aggarwal, Partner of M/s. Anant Corrugators (appellant No. 3) and Rajeev Sharma Partner of M/s. Carton India (not appellant in this appeal). It is only later on that J.K. Gupta (appellant No. 4) was served with a show cause notice alleging receipt of the go....