TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmation of demands on kutcha slips which were recovered through investigation from the factory premises for the period July 95 to May 97. The Commissioner has concluded that the goods have been manufactured in terms of these kutcha slips relating to period July 95 to May 97 and has rejected their explanation that these kutcha slips did not bear signature of any persons. The author of kutcha slips have not been examined and that no corroborative evidence has been discovered by the investigating officers with regard to use of extra electricity; flow back of funds, purchase of raw materials, sale of goods clandestinely. It was also contended that these kutcha slips relate to different types of checks carried out by them and categorize them a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the entire records. Learned Counsel submitted that the demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of kutcha slips which referred to different aspect of the matter. There was no tenable, direct and corroborative evidence nor there was any admissions made by the partners of the appellant firm. The department has not investigated with regard to the purchase of inputs, sale of final product and flow back of funds. Therefore, he submitted that the order pertaining to confirmation of demands of seized kutcha slips of period in question is not sustainable in law and he submits that the issue of non-confirmation of demands on kutcha slips is covered by the following judgments. (1) T.G.L. Poshak C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n so far as the demands raised on excess goods found in the vehicle and seizure of goods without payment of duty is concerned, the appellants are not contesting the same. Therefore duty and confiscation fine on the excess goods seized are required to be confirmed in terms of the fine imposed in page 31 of the order in C,D,E,F&G, the duty and fine accordingly is confirmed as the same is not contested. 6. The contest is pertaining to demands computed on the basis of kutcha slips found in the premises for the period April 95 to April 96. There is no signature on these kutcha slips of any person nor there is any corroboration pertaining to receipt of inputs, manufacture of final product and sale to any purchaser. A simple conclusion has been d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne nor the details of the kutcha slips has been examined to find out as to what exactly it represent, therefore, the demands raised on the basis of the kutcha slips is set aside. The penalty has been imposed under Section 11AC to an extent of Rs. 29,21,723/- which represents clearance made on and after 28-9-96. We find that the penalty is excess compared to duty liability. Therefore the same is reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. The penalty imposed under Rule 173Q(1) with regard to clearance prior to 28-9-96 which also pertains to the seized goods is required to be confirmed. Hence it is confirmed. The contention of the counsel that there cannot be separate penalty on partners is covered by large number of judgments. Therefore separate penalties under....