Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (9) TMI 961

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unt under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In addition, penalty of Rs. 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 Excise officers on 20-2-2004 and certain excesses and shortages were detected. The final product as also the raw materials totally valued at about Rs. 93 lakhs was fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i Dubey was subsequently retracted on 21-2-2004. However, he was again called on 5-3-2004, and his statement was recorded confirming the contents of panchnama as also his earlier statement dated 20-2-2004 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 stock. 6. Statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Director was recorded on 7-4-2004, agreeing with the statement of Shri Lalji Dubey and of Shri Raghunandan Aggarwal. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Satish Kumar were recorded on 30-7-2008 and 8-9-2008 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 19-11-2008 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 statement, he deposed that the same were factual and correct reflection and he withdrew his retraction. He again admitted the contents of the above statement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its 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 excesses and shortages being of near about Rs. one crore of value of the materials. The recovery of loose papers led the revenue to believe that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o 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, Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (270) E.L.T. 643 (S.C.)] can be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates