TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as detained therein, on them. 2. The facts out of which these appeals arise may briefly be stated as under : 3. On 29-11-1995 one tempo No. DBL 6399 loaded with copper wire rods was intercepted by the officers of the Central Excise Anti-Evasion near Shahdara Flyover, Petrol Pump. On demand the driver of that tempo could not produce any bill, invoice, challan etc. He, however, disclosed that the goods in his tempo were loaded by the firm M/s. Laxmi Engineering Works (Appellant No. 1) for delivery at Vishwas Nagar. The tempo and driver both were taken to the premises of appellant No. 1 where Bhupinder Jain (appellant No. 2) Director of M/s. Dina Industries was present. The firm M/s. Laxmi Engg. Works (appellant No. 1) was owned by M/s. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copper wire rods valued at Rs. 38,50,79,145.67 at the rate of Rs. 155/- per kg. It was also alleged in that notices that they did not maintain proper statutory record correctly regarding the receipt of the raw material, manufacture and sale of the finished goods during that period. 4. On receipt of the above said show cause notice the appellants contested the correctness of the allegations made therein. In reply to that show cause notice they denied the recovery of 65 slip pads, some loose papers and one register from the premises of the factory. They also requested for cross-examination of Sohan Lal and the punch witnesses in whose presence the alleged record was seized. Bhupinder Kumar Jain (appellant No. 2) denied the voluntary nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and imposing penalty on the appellants were inadmissible evidence and as such could not be used as a substantive piece of evidence against them. Sohan Lal, Supervisor who allegedly made entries in those documents did not present himself for examination by the appellants during the adjudication proceedings and as such his statement could not be used against them at all. The Counsel has also contended that the alleged confessional statement dated 29-11-1995 and subsequent statement dated 13-12-1995, 20-12-1995 and 6-5-1996 of Bhupinder Kumar Jain (appellant No. 2) could not be used against him as the same were duly retracted for having been procured from him under duress, threat and coercion and that the first statement dated 29-11-1995 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants as out of the total slip pads recovered, 30 allegedly pertained to the receipt of raw material i.e. sillies/ingots while the other 35 related to the manufacture of copper wire rods from that material by them. These records, as the perusal of the impugned order shows, were maintained either by Sohan Lal, Supervisor or by Nagendera or by Prem (Raju) who were employees of the appellants. But out of these three employees the statement of only Sohan Lal was recorded during investigation wherein he allegedly admitted the correctness of the entries in the seized record, but his statement could not be in fact legally used as a substantive piece of evidence against the appellants. He did not appear for cross-examination during the adjudicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpo allegedly carrying the copper wire rods without documents by the anti-evasion staff of the Excise Department and in those proceedings they even denied the recovery of the above said documents from the factory premises of the appellants by deposing that they were called later on to attest the panchnama after the completion of all the formalities. They in fact, did not support the case of the Revenue against the appellants at all. 12. Much reliance had been placed by the Commissioner on the statements of Bhupinder Kumar Jain (appellant No. 2) recorded on different dates for holding that the allegations as contained in the show cause notice stood proved. The first statement of Bhupinder Kumar Jain was recorded on 29-11-1995, the date on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even otherwise there is nothing on the record to suggest if statement of suppliers of the raw material i.e. sillies/ingots which were not accounted for in the statutory record by the appellants and of the buyers to whom the final products i.e. copper wire rods were allegedly supplied by them without payment of duty, during the period in question, were recorded. No evidence regarding the consumption of electricity during the period in question more than what it was consumed in the normal course by the appellants was collected during the investigation. The appellants were only doing the job work of converting sillies/ingots supplied by the outsiders, into copper wire rods. Therefore, keeping in view all the above referred facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
