9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) Whether Hon'ble Central Excise & Service Tax Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by holding those proceedings initiated by the respondents authorities in respect of the alleged case initiated against the appellant for clandestine removal of goods and non-payment of duty, though the action taken by the respondents were beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Central Excise Act, 1948, i.e. beyond the period of six months? (B) Whether Hon'ble Central Excise & Service Tax Tribunal was justified in rejecting the Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) by way of cryptic order, though direct judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case reported in case of Tonira ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded on account of non-compliance of the summons issued to them. Therefore, learned Counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that if there was no evidence quoted in further investigation, the judgment and order of the Tribunal confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals) is erroneous. He has also referred to the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) in detail and emphasized about the material and evidence to further emphasize the submission that further investigation has not revealed any material which could lead to such findings, and therefore, the further investigation, which was carried on, has not supported the case of Revenue. The impugned notice issued after the period of six months would be invalid. He submitted that therefore the Tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. This fact was admitted by Shri S.K. Shaikh, Director of the appellant in his statement dt. 17-8-2000 that they have maintained parallel invoice book and cleared the finished goods without payment of central excise duty and cess, without accounting the same in central excise statutory records. He also admitted that the parallel fake/bogus invoice book was maintained by his staff under his own instructions and shown his willingness to pay the central excise duty/cess due thereon. In this regard, I rely upon the Tribunal's decision in case of M/s. Gautam Cables Inds. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 139 wherein it was held that "Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Parallel invoices/G.P.Is maintained - Partner of firm admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, it is being contended before us that all the consignees have not admitted having received the goods and as such benefit should be extended to them. We find that the main and regular consignee M/s. Graph Packaging has admitted that they were receiving paper without payment of duty either under the cover of a bogus, invoice or without the cover of any document. It has also come on record that the payments for the goods received under the cover of bogus invoices were being made in cash and such records were being destroyed subsequently." 6.There is a reference to the statements recorded and on the basis thereof the Tribunal has further observed : "When it stands established that the entries made in the delivery challan and note books are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
