9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken up for disposal together. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in processing of man-made fabrics. A surprise check was conducted by the Central Excise officers on29-7-2003. During the check 27 lots of grey fabrics (1256 pcs.) valued at Rs. 40,24,691/- were found short in the lot register. Initially, the proceeding began on the premise that the appellant have only received the documents and did not receive the grey fabrics, Shri Bhanwarlal Jeevanlal Rathi. Power of Attorney of the unit, in his statement dated29-7-2003recorded under Section 14, admitted that they have taken the credit on the fabrics found short, on the basis of challans without receiving the fabrics. Thereafter, they debited the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I, 2005 (180) E.L.T. 219 (Tri.-Mumbai). 5. The contention of the respondent is that the proprietors have admitted the offence and admission is a substantial piece of evidence unless proved as extracted under coercion or duress. In support, the learned SDR rely upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Surie Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 195 (Tri.-Del.). 6. I have perused the record and considered the submission. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the appellant raised certain basic issues, viz, that they have been denied cross-examination of Shri Sandip Ghorilal Nahar, the proprietor of M/s. Venus Impex, and Shri Akukara Nazim Yasin, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an offence on the part of the said proprietors. It is natural that one can continue admitting till there is no harm to one's own interest. At times it is also advantageous to do so, like in the present case, viz, to admit goods having sent alongwith documents is a better preposition than to admit having sent only the cenvatable documents. Obviously, in their statement they have not admitted any offence on their part, rather they have implicated the appellants in their statements. Therefore, the proposition of the department regarding the cross-examination may be correct so far as Shri Rathi, the Power of Attorney holder of the appellant, is concerned. However, the same does not hold good in the case of cross-examination of the proprieto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
