TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of ₹ 1.5 Crores, the Excise liability is still apparent against the appellant. The CA certificate of appellants own firm also corroborates the activity of the appellant as not only of re-selling but also of sale of manufactured items. Since ignorance of law can never be an excuse, the non-registration and non-discharge of the excise liability on the part of the appellant cannot be ruled out to be a strategy to avoid his liability. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The confirmation of confiscation of unaccounted finished goods is also opined to have no infirmity - the appellant has failed to discharge his liability of tax. He is not entitled to SSI exemption, his income being beyond ₹ 1.5 Crore. The non-registra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without keeping themselves registered with the Central Excise Department. With these allegations a demand of ₹ 17,98,287/- was proposed alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalties. Prior to the said show cause notice, another show cause notice No.2717 dated 24.12.2012 was also issued proposing the confiscation of the unaccounted finished goods and both these show cause notices, the proposals there in were confirmed initially vide Order-in-Original dated 29.02.2016. However, the demand was reduced to ₹ 5,29,405/- with the simultaneous confirmation about the proposal to confiscate the unaccounted finished products. Being aggrieved the appeal was preferred before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore finding a case of clandestine removal. Affording an opportunity for cross-examination to the assessee is impressed upon as a mandate in view of the said Circular, ld. Counsels have prayed the present matter to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority below with the directions to afford the opportunity of cross- examination to the appellant and to decide the matter afresh. Appeal is prayed to be disposed of in the afore said terms. In addition, the impugned show cause notices are objected as being barred by time. Since there is no evidence for proving the alleged mala fide on record, the question of imposition of penalty does not at all arises. For the said reason also the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. The case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I observe and hold as follows:- 6. That the entire documents/record as has been produced today was recovered by the Department from the premises of appellant itself as were searched on 27.06.2012. It is apparent from the show cause notice that proper procedure of search as enshrined even under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Cord was duly followed by the Department as is apparent from the fact that 2 independent witnesses were joined. The detailed Panchnama was prepared on the spot in the presence of these witnesses. The entire record as has been produced today and on which have relied the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o prove the defence/the case of the accused / assessee. But it is the simultaneous proposition of law that the opportunity of cross-examination becomes available to the assessee only after the Department takes a call about the persons whose statement have been recorded to be as the witnesses and in case their statements are recorded in the form of examination in chief then only the opportunity of cross-examination becomes available to the opponent. It is the apparent fact that all these statements which have been relied upon by the Adjudicating authority below were recorded in the presence of the appellant herein. From the order under challenge, it is clear that the Commissioner has even considered the request for cross examination by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings above no infirmity in the order under challenge is opined. The same is hereby upheld. 9. The confirmation of confiscation of unaccounted finished goods is also opined to have no infirmity. In view of the above observations and opinion, it is clear that the appellant has failed to discharge his liability of tax. He is not entitled to SSI exemption, his income being beyond ₹ 1.5 Crore. The non-registration despite doing excisable activity is rather opined to be the sufficient positive act on his part, which can be categorized as an act with intent to evade duty. Department was therefore justified to invoke the extended period of limitation. Resultantly, the imposition of penalty is also opined to have no infirmity. The orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
