TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od adopted is a factual one which do not warrant interference by this Court. Held that:- The Tribunal did not make its order contemporaneously or within a month of the date of hearing; in this case it rendered its order and published it after about five months. In these circumstances, without any explanation as to whether the written submissions were handed over, particularly since they do not bear any date, it would be hazardous for this Court to conclude that the argument on this aspect was made before the Tribunal which failed to apply its mind. We have deemed it appropriate to discuss this aspect since the appellant’s counsel repeatedly submitted that this had a direct bearing on the question of valuation and that the Tribunal ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis that manufacturers of wires and cables falling under chapter H.85.44 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were resorting to evasion of duty on different units owned by them or their job workers by claiming Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption in respect of such units even though they were ineligible. It was alleged that after the search and seizure operations the Paragon Group has suppressed more than 50% of the actual quantity and value of clearances and made false declarations describing the size of wires and cables in the invoices and further understated the weight of the goods. 3. A show cause notice was issued on 13.08.2002 by the Commissioner of Central Excise. After the reply was furnished, an oral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2.3 Submissions: (i) Allegations are based on assumptions and presumptions. (ii) The demands has been worked out on the basis of a formula (Wt. Km.). There is no other evidence. (iii) The difference in weight is because of variation in weight of wooden drums as stated by S/Shri D.L. Nagpal, Sunil Nagpal, Sudhir Nagpal and Vikas Nagpal in their statements dt.25.7.2002. (iv) No weighment of seized goods got done as to certain exact tare and net weight. Notion weight has been adopted. (v) Weight is mentioned by transporters in LRs/GRs and is not declared by manufacturers who never bothered about the weight in LR/GR as freight was to be paid by the consignees. (vi) There is no confession in statements of Partners/Director r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aragon Power Cable Ltd, vide his letter dated 27.09.2004 has raised issue of jurisdiction for deciding the case and have also raised the similar points as detailed above and have sought the cross examination of tempo owner and transporter. I have gone through the submissions made by the noticees, Counsel for the noticees, Mahazars dated 29.05.2002, 31.05.2002, 09.04.2002 and 03.07.2002 and also the statements of directors/ partners of company/firms of the noticees and other evidences available on records. On perusal of various Mahazars of seizure of goods prepared at Chennai by the Officers of DGCEI, Chennai, it is clear that the firms namely M/s Paragon Cable Company, M/s Paragon Enterprises (India). M/s Paracon Cable Company, M/s Paragon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... size under the invoices of his firms. 16. Shri Sudhir Nagpal, Director of M/s Paragon Power Cable Ltd. in his statement dated 25.07.2002 also agreed with the proceeding of the Mahazars dated 09.04.2002, 31.5.2002 and 29.05.2002 and 03.07.2002 and agreed with all the discrepancies noticed and recorded in these Mahazars and accepted his mistakes for sending wires and cables of copper in the name of aluminium, armoured cable in the name of unarmoured cable and of different size under the invoices of his firms. In his statement dated 29.04.2002 he had specifically admitted that they were sending the goods i.e. wires and cables in excess of standard weight to the extent of the difference as taken out between the LR weight and the standard wei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the goods physically found and seized and the invoice accompanying these goods, these were sufficient evidence to prove the evasion of the Central Excise duty. vii) The Counsel for the noticees has pointed out that the difference of weight had been found out in only in fewer number of invoices and in many invoices the difference of weight is very meagre. This argument was not tenable as there was admittedly variations in the goods found on physical verification with the seized and the accompanying invoices. The department had raised demand in respect of only those cases where the difference in weight mentioned on LRs had been found more than the standard weight and the number of cases where the meagre difference in weight had been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
