TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about any particular entry that the said entry pertains to M/s.Gautam Enterprises or any other firm. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the plea of the learned Counsel requires outright rejection and we accordingly do so. Statements of Shri Pravesh Gautam were recorded over a period of more than one year and there are as many as nine statements. We do not find anything contradictory in these statements. We also find that in the subsequent statements including the ones which have not been retracted, Shri Pravesh Gautam has confirmed the details given in the initial statements. It is also see that the retraction letters were sent under Certificate of Posting and not by Speed Post/Registered Post. We have also gone through the retraction letters which do not indicate which portion of the statement is incorrect or recorded under duress. - diaries were recovered from their office and the contents of the diaries are also not under dispute and the contents clearly indicate that the appellant has purchased clandestinely cleared goods without payment from various manufacturers. Under the circumstances, we do not see any reason to give any importance about the non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant have received MS ingots from number of manufacturers and such MS ingots were both with payment of duty and also without payment of duty. Based upon the tabulation made from these diaries, statement of appellant as also other persons particularly suppliers were also recorded. Statements of brokers were also recorded. Both the suppliers as also brokers admitted of having supplied the MS ingots to the appellant without payment of duty. In fact most of the suppliers paid the duty involved on such MS ingots along with interest, penalty, etc. After the detailed investigation, show-cause notices were issued to the manufacturer of MS ingots for recovery of duty and penalty and to the brokers and the present appellant who was the purchaser of such clandestinely cleared MS ingots for penalty. After receiving the replies, the cases were adjudicated wherein the duty, interest and penalties were confirmed against the manufacturers of MS ingots and penalties were also imposed on the brokers and the present appellant who was the purchaser of such clandestinely cleared ingots. In the present set of appeals, such notices were issued to three manufacturers of MS ingots, namely, M/s.Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the Revenue has not found any details about the transportation of the goods and under the circumstances, penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterates various points made in the three impugned orders. The learned ARs first submission was that it is not denied by the appellant that the place from where the documents recovered was their office. The fact that the same place was used by other two firms out of which one belongs to Shri Pravesh Gautams father and the other to Shri Pravesh Gautam himself will not make any difference. The Ld. AR further submitted that Shri Pravesh Gautam was available at the time of Panchanama and his statements were recorded number of times. In case, some of the entries were not belonging to the appellant but to M/s.Gautam Enterprises, Shri Pravesh Gautam could have explained the same and Shri Pravesh Gautam could have explained the remaining entries. Revenue thereafter would have called his father for his statement. He further submitted that Shri Pravesh Gautam explained all the entries and he did not indicate that any of the entries is belonging to M/s.Gautam Enterprises. Under the circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial amount of duty evasion has been found. The fact that no discrepancy was found in stock does not imply that documents recovered are not truthful. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 6.1 At the out set we observe that whole case of the department is based upon the documents recovered from the appellants office in Mumbai. The documents are diary No.23, 24 26. It is not disputed that these diaries were recovered in Mumbai from a place where the appellants office exists. A plea is being made that the office is a common office for three firms. Out of other two firms, one is owned by the father of Shri Pravesh Gautam in the name and style of M/s.Gautam Enterprises and other firm is owned by Shri Pravesh Gautam. The fact that the place is used as common office will not make any difference. 6.2 We also note that the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that no statement of Shri RL Gautam, who was the proprietor of M/s.Gautam Enterprises was recorded. We find that the whole case is based upon the three diaries, namely, 23, 24 26 and contents of each diary has been explained by Shri Pravesh Gautam, Director in the appellants firm. We also note that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
