TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase of raw materials was deposited in Karur Vysya Bank. Details of Bank transactions have also been gathered. Thus, evidence against the appellants is overwhelming. No doubt, CEGAT in its remand order directed the adjudicating authority to give opportunity for cross-examination of all the witnesses and come to a conclusion. The fact that many of the witnesses did not turn up for cross-examination cannot be any reason for dropping the proceedings. It is also seen that statements which indicated admission of clandestine manufacture and removal have been retracted after a very long time. The adjudicating authority without critical examination has accepted the retractions. This action does not appear to be correct. Adjudicating authority shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal). M/s. EIL (3) S. Elangovan, Managing Director, M/s. EIL (4) Sarfudeen, Managing Partner, M/s. Super Sales. (5) MS. Mohammed Nazeer, Partner M/s. MSR Steel Agencies. Documentary evidence for removal of the goods clandestinely from M/s. EIL to M/s. ASRM from the transporter of the goods was found and the same were formed part of Annexure D to the show cause notice. Managing Partner of ASRM Shri G. Odayappan, admitted receipt of raw materials from M/s. EIL which were not accounted for. Evidence for sale proceeds in respect of unaccounted purchase from M/s. EIL by M/s. ASRM is also furnished and an employee, M. Muthuswamy, admitted that he used to deposit money in cash in the accounts of Shri Prem Kumar, Director (Technical) of M/s. EIL wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. ASRM, S.A. Premkumar, Director (Technical), M/s. EIL and Shri Elangovan, Managing Director of M/s. EIL. On appeal before the CEGAT, Chennai, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration after affording the appellants opportunity including cross-examination of the persons who were not cross-examined earlier and to enable the appellants to put forth their defence effectively in the de novo proceedings. Out of seven witnesses, only S. Muthuswamy appeared for cross-examination in the de novo proceedings. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the case is built up based on the statements and the Revenue has not discharged its onus for clandestine manufacture and removal of goods by corrobor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inely. This fact is supported by register No. 121 recovered from M/s. Rajarathina Transport. Shri Raghunathan, General Manger, M/s. EIL has admitted that he had despatched MS ingots using dummy invoices. Shri S.A. Premkumar, Director (Technical) of M/s. EIL has also admitted manufacture of ingots and clearance without payment of duty on dummy invoice to M/s. ASRM. Shri S. Elangovan, MD of M/s. EIL has also admitted unaccounted clearance to M/s. ASRM. Investigation revealed that huge amount of transaction in the bank account standing in the name of Shri S.A. Prem Kumar Director (Technical) of M/s. EIL in Karur Vysya Bank. Shri Jagan Mohan, Managing Partner of Rajarathina Transport in his statement admitted transport of ingots and removed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in accepting this, there was no documentary evidence. The Commissioner has failed to consider as to what purpose cash deposits running into lakhs of rupees were made. Muthuswamy, who is a Clerk in M/s. ASRM deposited money in the account of Mr. Premkumar. The Commissioner should have dismissed the retractions as an after thought. Retractions of statements after one year is an after thought as per the decision of the Tribunal in the case reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 112. Since persons like Elangovan, S. Raghunathan, A. Premkumar all key persons of M/s. EIL have not appeared before the investigating authorities for cross-examination, the Commissioner concluded that their statements could not be relied upon. It was miscarriage of justice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort, their receipts, source of funds, manufacture of finished products and their removal etc. it is not possible by any investigating agency at all time to establish complete chain of activities. In other words, as held by the Hon ble Apex Court, it is difficult to attain mathematical precision in investigation. As far as the present case is concerned, the Revenue appears to have established that M/s. EIL manufactured ingots which they did not account for and cleared the same to M/s. ASRM who manufactured the finished products like MS rods and angles and cleared them. Statements of the concerned persons in M/s. EIL are very revealing. Statements of the persons in-charge of M/s. EIL are supported by the statements of Odeyappan, Managing Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
