TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment. Further it is also admitted fact that the appellant have cleared laundry soap on payment of applicable state tax/VAT upon removal of laundry soap, which fact is not controverted on investigation. In view of these facts and circumstances, there is no violation on the part of the appellant under the provisions of the Customs Act read with Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. The allegations in the SCN are presumptive and unsubstantiated - the demand of penalty have been confirmed mechanically, without application of mind - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/70398/2016-CU[DB], C/51030/2015-CU[DB], C/51824/2015-CU[DB], C/52133/2015-CU[DB], C/52181/2015-CU[DB], C/52413/2015-CU[DB], C/52414/2015-CU[DB], C/52996/2015-CU[DB], C/53032/2015-CU[DB], C/53301/2015-CU[DB] - - - Dated:- 7-5-2018 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Hon ble Member(Judicial) And Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar, Hon ble Member(Technical) Shri Kamal Jeet Singh (Advocate) in A.No.C/52413/2015, C/52414/2015, C/53301/2015, Shri Bipin Garg (Advocate) in A.No.C/52133/2015, Shri K.K.Srivastava (Proxy Counsel) in A.No.C/51030/2015, C/51824/2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss examination of Shri Rajiv Singhal and the important witnesses of the Revenue should have been extended by the Adjudicating Authority. We also note that the reasons adopted by the Adjudicating Authority for denial of cross examination are neither legal nor convincing. For better appreciation, we reproduce para 57 of the impugned order:- 57. M/s BVML have also requested for cross examination of Shri Rajiv Singhal, Director, M/s Mega Sales Pvt. Ltd. alleging that his statement had formed the very basis of the impugned show cause notice. In this connection I observe that fact of forged and fake purchase of caustic soda could be detected from the scrutiny examination of records maintained by M/s Mega Sales Pvt. Ltd., which was based on records cannot be termed as the sole basis of the show cause notice inasmuch as investigations have also been carried out at the dealers end who had so to say purchased soap and sold the same in cash, and have also been made the basis of the SCN. I further observe that M/s BVML had not supplied the records/documents which included details of payment made to M/s Mega Sales against purchase of caustic soda for year 2005-06. The request dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant should be given an opportunity to cross examine the said Shri Rajiv Singhal. We order accordingly. After the conclusion of the cross examination, the appellant would file the reply to the notice within a period of 15 days there from and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the Commissioner would pass the order as soon as possible. All the stay petitions and appeals get disposed of in the above manner. 3. The Ld.Counsel appearing for some of the appellants including M/s.Bhagwan Vanaspati Mills Ltd., Shri Kamaljeet Singh has taken us through the facts of the case. He points out that it is undisputed fact that the appellant M/s.Bhagwan Vanaspati Mills Ltd. imported crude Palm oil at concessional rate of duty under notification number 21/2002 Cus and availed concessional rate of duty under actual user condition for manufacture of laundry soap. As required in terms of the notification and Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 the importer/appellant was required to obtain registration from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, apply for permission to import giving estimated quantity and val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any communication with reference to the letters issued to him for cross-examination. Letters of direction for appearance on Shri Rajeev Singhal was also served through the jurisdictional Central Excise office, Ghaziabad under whose jurisdiction M/s.Mega Sales lies, but of no avail. The Ld.Counsel further states that there is failure on the part of the adjudicating authority to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him to ensure and/or enforce the attendance of witness, for the purpose of adjudication proceedings. The only other reason for taking adverse view against the appellant in the impugned order is that, for the goods received from M/s.Mega Sales, the appellant had made payment through one K.S. Traders, Noida during the financial year 2005 06. In support of this the appellant had also filed a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant M/s.Vijay Kashap Co, who had certified that as per the books of accounts of the appellant for the financial year 2005 06 payment of ₹ 1,22,57,015/- has been made to M/s.Mega Sales Pvt.Ltd. through M/s.K.S.Traders, Noida against the purchase made from M/s.Mega Sales Pvt.Ltd. on their instructions Enclosed with the certificate was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as required in custom series form No. 127. Further upon proper satisfaction the jurisdictional Central Excise officer released the bonds. We also take notice that such registers are maintained in the prescribed form showing the goods received (namely imported CPO) the appellant have maintained proper records and there are periodical remarks of checking by the appropriate officer of the Department. Further it is also admitted fact that the appellant have cleared laundry soap on payment of applicable state tax/VAT upon removal of laundry soap, which fact is not controverted on investigation. In view of these facts and circumstances we hold that there is no violation on the part of the appellant under the provisions of the Customs Act read with Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. 6. Thus the allegations in the show cause notice are presumptive and unsubstantiated. We find that the demand of penalty have been confirmed mechanically, without application of mind. The fact of payment received by M/s.Mega Sales is also in support of appellant- manufacturer. The impugned order is not sustainable for not following the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
