9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dra Bhat (Open Court) 1. These appeals impugn a common order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) made on 8.8.213 in appeals filed on behalf of the manufacturers (hereafter collectively be known as the appellants - Paragon Group) along with their partners and Directors. The substantial question of law sought to be urged is as to the method adopted by the Revenue - respondent in valuing the seized goods; especially as to the weight of the copper cables recovered from the wooden drums. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the excise authorities on 21.02.2002 carried on search and seizure operations in the premises of the appellants. This was on the basis that manufacturers of wires and cables falling under chapter H.8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the show cause notice proceedings. Counsel urged that this aspect was not addressed much less appreciated in its correct perspective. This has led to over estimation of the seized goods. 5. Learned counsel highlighted that the simpler method of subtracting the weight of the goods instead of adopting a different method in arriving the weight of each length of cable could have been adopted to reach a more just solution. It was submitted that this aspect was highlighted before the Tribunal in the hearing. Counsel relied upon the following submissions made in a written note said to have been handed over after making oral submissions to the Tribunal: - "8.2.3 Submissions: (i) Allegations are based on assumptions and presumptions. (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a factual one which do not warrant interference by this Court, which exercises jurisdiction exclusively when there is a substantial question of law. It was also submitted that the manufacturers in this case did not appear to have in fact urged this aspect before the Tribunal during the hearing and that the note submitted on this score does not even bear the date. 7. This Court has considered the submissions and material on record. 8. In this regard the Court notes that during the course of the order in original, the Commissioner observed as follows: - "14. Further subsequent to the final hearing which held on 22.09.2004 M/s Paragon Power Cable Ltd, vide his letter dated 27.09.2004 has raised issue of jurisdiction for deciding the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese Mahazars and accepted his mistakes for sending wires and cables of copper in the name of aluminium, armoured cable in the name of unarmoured cable and of different size under the invoices of his firms. 15. Shri Vikas Nagpal, Partner of M/s Paracon Cable Company in his statement dated 25072002 also agreed with the proceeding of the Mahazars dated 09.04.2002,31.05.2002 and 29.05.2002 and 03.07.2002 and agreed with all the discrepancies noticed and recorded in these Mahazars and accepted his mistakes for sending wires and cables of copper in the name of aluminium, armoured cable in the name of unarmoured cable and of different size under the invoices of his firms. 16. Shri Sudhir Nagpal, Director of M/s Paragon Power Cable Ltd. in his s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - "vi) The Counsel had pointed out that the department had seized goods at godown of a buyer a Chennai but they had not weighed any of the drums. The scrutiny of the various of Mahazars prepared at Chennai clearly indicate that the goods seized were actually accompanied by invoices of different description, the invoices were prepared for unarmoured cable in place of armoured cable, aluminium cable in place of copper cables and also the quantity was found to be excess, the facts had also been admitted very categorically by the partners/directors of the respective Paragon Group of Companies . When there was a clear difference in the goods physically found and seized and the invoice accompanying these goods, these were sufficient evidence to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order and published it after about five months. In these circumstances, without any explanation as to whether the written submissions were handed over, particularly since they do not bear any date, it would be hazardous for this Court to conclude that the argument on this aspect was made before the Tribunal which failed to apply its mind. We have deemed it appropriate to discuss this aspect since the appellant's counsel repeatedly submitted that this had a direct bearing on the question of valuation and that the Tribunal ought to have taken care to address the issue. The affidavit in support of the appeal no doubt states that the copies placed on the record are true copies, yet significantly there is no date attributed to the written submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
