9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise along with interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Appeal has also filed against the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they are engaged in the manufacture of Steel Doors and Windows falling under Chapter sub-heading No.7308.30, 7308.90 & 7204.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and were availing the benefit of Notification No.8/2000 for the year 2000-2001. A truck was intercepted on 17/03/2001 and the driver of the truck failed to produce the Central Excise invoices and as a result the officers of Central Excise visited the premises of Basic Arch Products Pvt. Ltd. The said goods were seized under the belief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ournment will be given. Therefore, the matter is being taken up on the basis of appeal memorandum. 3.1 It was noticed that admittedly there were irregularities on the part of employees, whose statements are recorded and relied upon in the show-cause notice. The employees who maintained records and whose statements were relied upon had left the organisations and their whereabouts not known. They had claimed that it is absolutely necessary to cross examine these officers and the panchas and therefore, the matter needs to be remanded for denovo adjudication. It has been argued that case needs to be decided after allowing cross examination of all the persons involved in the case including the panchas. The second issue raised by the appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinely removed with its proper valuation." 5.1 The appellant simultaneously also claims that the following: "Present addresses of both these two persons are not known since departure from the firm. The loss to applicant caused is already elaborated infra." 5.2 It is apparent that the show-cause notice is not merely based on the statements. A lot of records have also been recovered from the appellants premises as well as from M/s.B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Ltd., Pune, and thus simply because of two employees whose statements have been relied upon and, according to the appellants are not traceable and therefore, cross examination cannot be granted is not sufficient to dislodge the impugned order. It is seen that the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aising this issue of valuation before the Tribunal when the clear intention of defeating the proceedings. It is seen that the valuation has been done on the basis of invoices available with Revenue as the appellant had refused to co-operate during the investigation. Even in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, the value of similar goods can be adopted as value for the purpose of assessment, in the absence of actual transaction value. Thus Revenue cannot be faulted. 5.4 From the above, we find that the appellants are trying to defeat the proceedings by seeking cross examination of the people who were their employees and have now left. They are not traceable by the appellants too. They cannot escape by challenging the valuation of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sangamner liable for penalty under erstwhile Rule 209A and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules". 7.1 Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora - 2014 (306) ELT 533 (Guj), approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2014 (309) ELT A131 (SC) to assert that penalty in persons is fully justified. 7.2 The case in respect of Shri Hemant S Parmar, the Commissioner has observed as follows: "I also find that, Shri Hemant S Parmar knowingly and deliberately tried to mislead the department by contradicting himself in his statement dated 04/04/2001 by saying that M/s.Vallabh Multiple Doors does snot have a manufacturing unit, but in the same statement he further stated that aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified companies like SAIL, Tata, Jindal, LLOYDS, etc. to M/s.B.G Shirke Construction Technology though it was prime condition of works order No.33 dated 16/01/2001". 7.3 In the appeal memorandum of Shri Hemant S Parmar and Shri Vallabh S Parmar again there is no challenge to the fact of the case. The grounds of appeal mentioned as follows: "On irregularities: Admittedly there are irregularities on the part of some persons mentioned in the show cause notice. Unfortunately two of them i.e. Mr.Saskar and Mr.Parad were employees and were supposed to follow instructions unreservedly given by the appellant in the capacity as Managing Director. The appellant came to know about the irregularities committed by these two persons after a long g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
