TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly lead to only one fact that appellants after recording of the statements admitting clandestine activities, was retracting the same mechanically. After each retraction,the Director as also Shri Dubey, in his subsequent statement again admitted clandestine activities.Such repeated retractions, have rightly held to be infructous and of no consequence by the adjudicating authority. Infact I find that the final statement of the said deponents have not been retracted at all. Though it is well settled law and does not require the support of any decision of the judicial or quasi-judicial courts to observe that the activities of clandestine nature are required to be proved by sufficient, tangible and positive evidence. However, the facts presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 8,60,474/-stand confirmed against M/s.Ganapati Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd . along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties of identical amount under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In addition, penalty of ₹ 20,000/- stand imposed against Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Director and Shri Lalji Dubey, Manager of the Ganapati Rolling Mills in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. As per facts on record, M/s. Ganapati Rolling Mills (hereinafter referred to as appellant) is engaged in the manufacture of copper wire rods falling under Chapter 74 of the first schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Their factory was visited by the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly arriving at amounts which have yet to be received, from the outstanding amounts. Accordingly, entries relating to some payment were crossed. The, said statement of Shri Lalji Dubey was subsequently retracted on 21.2.104. However, he was again called on 5.3.04, and his statement was recorded confirming the contents of panchnama as also his earlier statement dated 20.2.04 to be correct statement. 5. Further statement of Shri Raghunandan Aggarwal, authorised signatory of the appellant was recorded on 10.3.2004 admitting that he was making entries in the accounts on the directions of the Director of the appellant and subsequent to the search, he was called and made to write excise records up to the date of search so as to balance the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and such entries are in hand writing of Shri Ram Lal and Shri Satish Kumar. As a result of above disclosure made by Shri Dubey, statement of Shri Ram Lal and Shri Satish Kumar were recorded on 30.7.08 and 8.9.08 wherein they agreed with the statement of Shri Dubey as also about the codes written in the said statement. They also agreed that the said papers contain records of 38 coils which were sent to M/s.Vardhman Cables without papers. 10. Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Director of the company was again summoned on 19.11.08 to clarify on the retraction sent by him on 8.4.2004. During the interrogation he was shown his own statement as also the statement of Shri Lalji Dubey and that of Shri Raghunandan Aggarwal. After going through the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been placed on various decisions of the Tribunal . 14. As against the above, Shri Ranjan Khanna, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, submits that it is not only one statement of Director or the employees which stand relied upon by the Revenue. All the persons have given inculpatory statements, retracted the same and again when called for admitted the fact of clandestine removal. As such, all the statements are corroborative to each Other and the Revenue cannot be expected to establish its case by mathematical precisions. 15. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides and after going through impugned orders, I note that on the date of visit of the officers in the appellants factory, there were admitted excesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndestine removal stand corroborated by Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Director of the appellant as also by Shri Raghunandan Aggarwal and two supervisors of the company. Not only that, even the Director of the customers company M/s. Vardhman Cables has also in his initial statement, admitted having received the goods without payment of duty. No doubt the outcome of cross examination has to be given due importance but keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact of alleged excess and shortages detected at the time of visit of officers, and the fact of deposit of duty, has to be taken into consideration which lead only to one and one fact of clandestine removal of the appellants final product. In this connection, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
