Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 777 - CESTAT NEW DELHIClandestine removal of goods – Held that:- Following Takshila Spinners v/s CCE [2001 (5) TMI 79 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] - No enquiry has been made from the transporter regarding truck number and the transporter did not produce any records as stated by him in his statement - The statement was recorded after a gap of 4 years in the absence of the assesse - The assessees were not given opportunity to cross examine the transporter despite making specific request - It was alleged in the show cause notice that goods under cover of proforma GRs were transported to M/s Uttam Cottage Industries Calcutta and no duty was paid - But the firm was not interrogated to know the facts - absence of Adjudication based on the statements only of witnesses who could not be cross-examined, coupled with total lack of any corroborative evidence, not sustainable as legally statements of such persons who failed to submit themselves for cross-examination could not be accepted or taken into evidence. Undervaluation of Papers – Lack of evidence – Held that:- Following CCE Meerut v/s Raman Ispat (P) Ltd.[ 2000 (7) TMI 118 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] - Allegations in show cause notice based on a private note book seized from the factory premises -No evidence collected in support of the alleged receipt of inputs and the presumed manufacture in excess of the recorded figures Writer of the diary not examined - Proceedings were rightly dropped by the Commissioner on the ground that the department collected no material to prove the authenticity of the seized private note books and for failing to trace/examine material witnesses - the charge of undervaluation is not sustainable. Extended period of limitation – Held that:- The word willful is omitted before the word suppression or mis-statement in the notice to show case, the extended period is not invokable – Relying upon Cosmic Dye Chemical V/s CCE [1994 (9) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - for the longer period to apply, the term suppression or mis-statement must be qualified by the immediately preceding word ‘wilful’ - the preceding words are omitted in the show cause notice, extended period is not invokable - Decided against Revenue.
|