TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon documents, it is on record that the same had already been returned to the concerned parties as evidenced from the letter dated 21-10-2013 of the investigating agency to the adjudicating authority. The evasion of excise duty in the present case is based on documentary evidence which clearly shows clearance of goods without payment of duty form the transactions recorded in the computer seized from the factory of the appellant. This is further corroborated by the unaccounted purchase of raw materials from M/s Sigma Minerals and M/s Hitech Plast. From the invoices issued by M/s Hitech Plast for sale of plastic containers to M/s Simco, it is seen that plastic containers sold to Simco to the extent of ₹ 40.10 lacs, ₹ 21.96 lacs and ₹ 25.45 lacs during 2009-10, 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively have not been accounted for in the books of accounts of M/s. Simco. Similarly in respect of hydrated lime sold by M/s Sigma to M/s Simco, the transactions were not recorded in the books of account of both the parties and the transactions were carried out in cash without bringing them in the books of accounts - Further Sri. Manoj Mittal, Managing Director of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Jay Govind Lashkar, Sales Executive and Manoj Mittal, Managing Director were recorded. A computer wherein the records of of the appellant were kept was also seized. In the follow-up action, statements of Shri.Chainaram Jakhar of Sigma Minerals Ltd. and Shri Suresh Vidhate of M/s Hitech Plast, raw material suppliers and Shri. Sundar B. Nirankari, Prop. Sundar Enterprises, Kolhapur and Shri M.L. Bhujbal, Prop. Omkar Sales Corporation, buyers of the paints manufactured by the appellant and Shri Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Manager of the appellant at Bangalore were recorded. The investigation revealed unaccounted production of paints and clearance thereof without payment of duty of ₹ 88,79,846/- during the period March 2007 to April, 2010. It was found that the raw material purchases were not accounted for in the books of accounts of the appellant, non-accountal of production of paints and clearance of paints without payment of duty either by issuing parallel invoices/non-issue of invoices, collection of sales proceeds in cash, etc. On completion of investigation, a show cause notice dated 2-4-2012 was issued proposing to demand the duty evaded along with interest and also proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly returned by the investigating agency as revealed from the records. Thus there is no basis for the allegation of non-furnishing of documents. As regards denial of cross-examination, the appellant has not given details of the persons required to be cross-examined and the reasons therefore. Further the charge is based on incriminating documents seized, the details of the transactions recorded in the computer seized, statements of the raw material suppliers and buyers of finished goods, some of whom are co-accused. Therefore, there are sufficient documentary evidences available to prove the charge against the appellant and hence, denial of cross-examination has not caused any pre-judice to the appellant. The adjudicating authority has recorded detailed reasons for denial of cross examination. In these circumstances, he pleads for upholding the impugned order and putting the appellant to terms. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions very carefully. 6.1 The first issue for consideration whether there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice in this case. The contention of the appellant is that they have not received the some of the relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated copy of the image file, was handed over to Shri. Manoj Mittal, Managing Director, M/s KCL in the presence of we panchas and Shri Muralidharan Nair, Authorized signatory of M/s KCL. 6.4 Further the adjudicating authority has recorded that during the personal hearing held on 24-09-2013, Shri. C. Subba Reddy, advocate for the notice No.1 2 appeared for personal hearing and stated that they do not dispute having received the relied upon documents mentioned in para 37 of the show-cause notice. 6.5 From this factual position evidenced from the records, the contention of the appellant that they were not given copies of the relied upon documents is clearly not sustainable and accordingly we reject this contention. As regards the non-handing over of the non-relied upon documents, it is on record that the same had already been returned to the concerned parties as evidenced from the letter dated 21-10-2013 of the investigating agency to the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the contention in this regard fails completely. 6.6 The next question for consideration is whether denial of cross-examination has prejudiced the cause of the appellants. The evasion of excise duty in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hon'ble apex court decision in Systems components case [2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC)] refer. Therefore, the denial of cross examination can not said to have crossed any prejudice to the appellants. In these circumstances, we do not agree with the contention of the appellant that principles of natural justice have been violated in the present case. 6.7 In the light of the factual matrix as detailed above, there is substantial evidence against the appellant with regard to the charge of evasion of excise duty. A query was put to the counsel for the appellant whether any financial hardship is pleaded. However, he was unable to submit any evidence in this regard. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out any prima facie case for grant of waiver of pre-deposit. Keeping in view the substantial evidences available on record, interest of revenue and the absence of financial hardship, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 45 lakhs (which is approximately 50% of the duty demand confirmed) including the amount already paid, if any, within a period of eight weeks and report compliance by 28th July, 2014. On such compliance p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
