9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by M/s. Sonal Vyapar Ltd. (appellants in E/1011/2004) from their godown and this document apparently covered second sale of MS angles. The lorry-driver, in his statement, stated that the goods were loaded from the factory of M/s. Sonal Vyapar Ltd., and that he had not even seen the godown premises. Shri V. Agarwal, Director of the company, in his statement, admitted that the goods were manufactured and cleared from the factory and that such clearance was effected under trader's invoice without payment of duty. It was also stated that the clearance was from the unaccounted production of the day (25-5-2000). From the above statements, it appeared to the Department that the goods seized from the lorry were being clandestinely removed from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the vehicle along with redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the statement of the Director of the company, which is inculpatory, was not retracted shortly. The so-called retraction of the statement by the company through their reply to the show cause notice dated 2-1-2001 is not a valid retraction in the eye of law inasmuch as there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay of retraction. Hence the lower authorities have rightly relied upon the above statement of the Director to reach a finding that the goods were being clandestinely removed, without invoice or payment of duty, from the factory under cover of trader's invoice. The demand of duty on the goods is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on whether such goods were liable to confiscation. The latter question was a part of the subject-matter of the appeal filed by the company before the lower appellate authority. Therefore, in the normal course, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have disposed of the company's appeal before disposing of Shri Ramasamy's appeal. It appears from the records that Shri Ramasamy's appeal was disposed of on 19-4-2004 and the company's appeal on 26-4-2004. This is intriguing. I find great force in the submission made by ld. Counsel that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) took a predetermined approach in the appeal filed by Shri Ramasamy. Order-in-Appeal No. 212/2004 is, therefore, vitiated by non-application of mind and the same is set aside. Ld. Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
