The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order where demand of duty of Rs.1,97,698/- has been confirmed along with interest which can be reduced to 25% if the same is paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The facts of the case are that, on visit to the factory of the appellants on 9.1.2003, it was found that the appellant was clearing the goods without payment of duty. Five brown colour chits were recovered from the factory of the appellants for clearance of goods without payment of duty. A statement of Shri S. Mani, who was Accountant and looking after Central Excise matters, was also recorded. In the statement, Shri Mani has admitted that the bags mentioned in brown colour chits were cleared without invoice and without payment of duty of Central Excise. Thereafter, a case was made out against the appellant. A SCN was issued and a demand mentioned herein above was confirmed against them. The appellants are in appeal against the above said impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that while quantifying the duty, no details of the goods, i.e. description, rate, quantity and value were shown to them. Moreover, no corroborative evidence has been brought on record. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Monarch (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner - 2006 (197) ELT 396 (Tri.-Kolkata).
4. On the other hand, learned SDR opposed the contention of the learned counsel and submitted that this case is made out on the basis of investigation conducted at the premises of the appellant on 9.1.2003, and on the basis of the statement recorded. It is the admission by the appellant themselves that they have cleared the goods without payment of duty. Therefore, no further evidence is required.
5. Heard both sides. Considered their submissions.
6. I have gone through the statement recorded by the department on 9.1.2003 of Shri S. Mani, Accountant of the appellant wherein he has clearly admitted the five numbers of brown chits and details contained therein and that the bags mentioned in the brown chits were cleared without invoice and without payment of duty of Central Excise. In that set of facts, no more evidence is required by Revenue as the said statement has not been retracted by the appellant at any stage of adjudication or further. That statement is a voluntary statement given by the Accountant of the appellant-company. In view of these observations, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel is not relevant to the facts of this case. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. As the appellant has paid the duty before issuance of the SCN, and there is no quantification of the interest, in that view the penalty is reduced to 25%. Appeal is disposed off in the above terms.