TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Infact I find that the final statement of the said deponents have not been retracted at all. Department has not simplicitor relied upon the statement of authorised representatives. Repeated statements of various persons stand recorded after each and every retraction. Further, the statement of Shri Dubey, admitting clandestine removal stand corroborated by Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Director o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 93 lakhs was found to be unaccounted in statutory records. Excess found goods were seized and handed over to Shri Lalji Dubey. Separate proceedings were initiated against the appellants for the said shortages and excesses by way of issuing separate show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 also undertook to deposit ₹ 5 lakhs which was subsequently deposited vide TR 6 challan dated 15-4-2004. However, Shri Jain subsequently retracted his statement vide letter dated 8-4-2004. However, Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, was again summoned on 9-8-2004 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bles 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 to be true. 11. Inasmuch as the clearances mentioned on the said documents were not a part of the statutory records, Revenue entertained a view that the said clearances were effected by the appellant without payment of duty. Accordingly, proceedings were initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the appellant was indulging in clandestine activities. The subsequent development of the recording of all statements of Director of the company as also of their key employees as also of the author of the entries, during the course of investigations clearly lead to only one fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eping 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 referred to. 17. In view of the foregoing, I find no merits in the appeal of M/s. Ganapati Rolling Mills. Further, inasmuch as Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Director of the company as also Shri Lalji Dubey, Manager of the company were in knowledge of fact of removal of goods without pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
