Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Shri Anil Nachrani, Director, Shri Sanjay Nachrani, Director Versus CCE, Raipur And Vice-Versa

Clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods - Sponge Iron - demand of duty with imposition of penalties - recovery of certain private records and statement of employees of the main appellant - denial of cross examination - Held that: - the appellants should have been offered an opportunity to cross examine the persons, who gave statements, which were relied upon by the Department. This is more relevant in the present case as the Director of the Company countered various assertions mad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

production. We note that wherever the figures are to their advantage to support the allegation of Revenue those figures were selectively taken in respect of some of the selective days to arrive at a calculation. Certain parameters have been taken as per RG-I and Form-IV, which are statutory records. The percentage yield is taken from the private records. We find that there is no consistent approach in calculating the quantification of unaccounted production, if any, by the main appellant. Furthe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Final Order Nos. 53974-53977/2016 - Dated:- 5-10-2016 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate and Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate for the appellants Shri Amresh Jain, AR for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran These four appeals along with one cross objection are taken up together as they are against the same impugned order dated 30.04.2010 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ods by the main appellant during the period Feb., 2004 to December, 2012. On completion of the investigation, a show cause notice was issued in Jan. 2009 proposing demand of central excise duty and penalties on various persons. The Original Authority adjudicated the case by confirming a duty demand of ₹ 73,50,921/- and imposing penalties of equivalent amount on the main appellant and various penalties on the Directors and employees. He dropped a demand of ₹ 51,58,329/-. 3. The impugn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s not high grade. (b) The private registers based on which the case was built up do not reflect the production figures correctly. These figures are only kept to monitor the performance of kiln and this has been clarified by the Director in his statement. Even for 371 days, the production for which is considered, on 151 days the production shown in the RG-I Register was higher than those mentioned in the private registers. This goes to show that the private records are not for recording the corre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion. When the Director of the company denied the authenticity of the private records maintained and gave explanation in this regard, the cross examination of the employees is relevant. Clandestine clearance of more than 5,000 MTs will involve a larger number of buyers. The department located only one buyer. Though inquiries were conducted, no statement or documents were cited or relied upon by the Department even in respect of this buyer. (d) The inquiry made with two transporters were also not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Original Authority. 4. Ld. AR opposed the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee/appellant. He submitted that the Department is aggrieved by that portion of the order dropping the demand as stated above. He submitted that as given in para 10 of the grounds of appeal, the calculation made on the basis of 63% recovery is applicable to second kiln too. The adjudicating authority erred in observing that production figures shown in the private registers pertain to both the kilns. 5. We ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

delay the proceedings. On this issue, we find the records maintained by Shri B.S. Rathore is the main source of evidence in this case. The statement of three of the employees including B.S. Rathore has been relied upon by the Original Authority. It is a well settled position of law that when the statements are relied upon, the Adjudicating Authority has to follow the provisions of Section 9 D of Central Excise Act, 1944. The settled position of law has been followed by the Tribunal and various .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

statement as relevant for proving the truth of the contents thereof, he has to first admit the statement in evidence in accordance with Clause (b) of Section 9 D(1).The person, who gave statement should be examined first before admitting the same. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in Flevel International -2016 (332) ELT 416 (Delhi) held that Section 9 D of the Act restricts the ground on which the cross examination can be denied. The Hon ble High Court relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

yees. As noted above, since the whole case rests on these private records and statements, it is necessary to get the truth of the matter after following the procedure laid down by the law. 8. Further, we also note that the chart submitted by the Revenue in para 10 of their appeal, shows that the private records and the RG-I and other statutory records were taken selectively to allege excess clandestine production. We note that wherever the figures are to their advantage to support the allegation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version