TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken into account the submissions of the appellants that there have not been direct or indirect corroborative evidences in the form of purchase/utilisation/consumption of raw materials, sale of finished goods and so on - also, appellants were not given the opportunity of cross examination of the concerned persons whose statements and evidences are having bearing on the outcome of their case - Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances. The impugned order also imposes penalty of ₹ 25 lakhs on Shri Sumit Agarwal, partner and penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs on Shri Rajeev Gupta, Supervisor. 2. The appellants have been represented by ld. Advocate Shri Prabhat Kumar and Revenue has been represented by ld. AR Shri G.R. Singh. 3. Based on appeal memorandum and the written submissions, the ld. Advocate for the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture of the goods. (c) No record of sale of gutkha was found. (d) There is no recovery of gutkha with brand name India Gold from the market. (e) No dealers have been identified to whom goods were sold. (f) There was no evidence of any transportation of the so called clandestinely manufactured gutkha. (g) No names of any transporters have been indicated. (h) No raw materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant assessee evaded duty of ₹ 96,47,361/-by way of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods viz. gutkha of India gold brand. The main evidence against the appellants are Panchnama dated 4.8.2008; statements of Shri Sumit Agarwal, partner and Shri Rajeev Gupta, Supervisor and Shri Jinesh Jain, proprietor of Jain Enerprises. 5. After careful consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
