TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant time a director of Sun. They drew a panchanama, seized records & took physical stock of the goods, raw material at the factories. Issued summons and recorded statements, especially of Shri Jaykumar Menon (hereafter referred to as Menon) another director of Sun, Shri Navin Parilkar (hereafter referred to as Navin) yet another director of Sun, Sushil, Shri Santosh Goerge, the excise clerk, who was supervised by Menon to comply with Central Excise matters and others. A show cause notice was issued on 15-4-2002 demanding duty by restricting the same to and on Clearances effected of inputs, semi-finished goods their under seizure equivalent to Modvat/Cenvat credit invalid in respect of such good, semi-finished goods under seizure finis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y have been conveniently exonerated by Revenue. Proceedings against 'Menon' have been dropped. Especially after the Commissioner has recorded that "However no reply was filed by Shri Jaykumar Menon the Notice No. 6" when a show cause notice was issued specially to him which avers as to why penalty should not be imposed on Menon under Rule 209A, that gives a strong veil to shield from liabilities the other Directors and technical persons who would and are not familiar and aware off and not responsible for day to Excise Law Compliance. The Commissioner has erred in his findings and reliance by the Ld. advocate on the decision of Naguba V.B. Shen Roa, AIR 1956 SC 595 is well founded. (c) Following t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same indicates the strong undertones of hostility on part of Shri Jaykumar Menon & an attempt to some how implicate the assessee and other Directors, without taking any blame on himself. Since Jaykumar Menon was responsible for maintenance of the Excise Records, absolving him of penal consequences, when he has not even classified his position during the enquiries or in the show cause notice proceedings/hearings, raise doubts about the element of Department Bias to exist as against the appellants herein, as urged by the appellants before us. Enquiries & adjudiction orders with a trace of bias cannot be upheld. The acquittal of Shri Jaykumar Menon by the adjudicator, of penal consequences, would call for acquittal of the assessee company f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 16-10-2001 and 18-10-2001 record the weight of parts (e.g. Tow hooks to be as 13750 Kgs and 15.250) and this products within itself would claim to be 80% of the goods manufactured. (v) Nylon Brush weight is taken as 10Kgs when the weight of this part is only 0.015 Kg. (vi) The figure for quantity of M.S. Bright Bars is 53.100 Kgs in the stock summary report, while it is reckoned at 53100.00 kgs as raw material purchases in working out the alleged shortage. This one error has increased the inputs receipts by 53046 kgs. (vii) The addition of receipts with effect from 1-4-1999 to 23-11-1999 Modvat inputs receipts have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned but the weight calculation needs to be checked". That should have induced the investigators and the adjudicators to have caused for a recheck of the weight calculations. The investigators did proceed to do so by issuing a summon to M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra. They obtained the data and the assessee produced a chart on that basis. However that evidence supporting the assessees bona fides was brushed aside, since that appeared to be in convenient. The weight put in "ink" on the summary, said to be provided by Shri Abhyanhar, by referring to records, in the case, to rebut the evidence from M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra cannot be taken to be Gospel truth, when it is pointed out from the documents that the weight in ink for 'Rear Tow Hook' is w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No material of removal of the huge quantity of goods found short i.e. 860.94 MT where value is estimated to be Rs. 1,17,51,031/- without any corresponding material about and on receipt/recovery of money or and actual transport having been effected, is a demand made on presumptions it cannot be upheld. Reliance on the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., 2001 (46) R.L.T. (701) is well founded by the Ld. Advocate, to induce us to set aside the order and allow the appeals. (i) When duty demands cannot be upheld, the penalties cannot be sustained. Reliance of the appellant on A.K. Tantil, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 638 is well placed to call for setting aside order....