TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon - Principles of natural justice. Held that:- The letter dated 12/13.08.1997 could not be provided by the department to the appellants therefore, in the absence of such letter, the claim of the department that all the relied documents were submitted by Shri R.R. Gupta stands failed - As regards other documents relied upon such as, statements of various persons, it is found that when the appellant have seriously challenged the veracity of the documents submitted under letter dated 12/13.08.1997, it is incumbent on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to provide the cross-examination of the persons whose statements have been relied upon because when the relied upon documents said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant M/s. Subhtex India Pvt. Limited was engaged in dyeing of yarn. Appellant Shri Vinay Poddar, is Director of M/s. Subhakti Textiles Limited and appellant Shri Ashok Gupta is Director of M/s. Subhtex India Pvt. Limited. The case of the department is that the Polyester Texturised Yarn manufactured by M/s. Subhakti Textiles Limited was cleared without payment of duty to M/s. Samarpan Textiles Pvt. Limited and M/s. Bee Gee Leasing Investment Pvt. Limited for twisting and such twisted yarn was cleared without payment of duty by M/s. Samarpan Textiles Pvt. Limited to M/s. Subhtex India Pvt. Limited for dyeing and that M/s. Subhtex India Pvt. Limited after dyeing, cleared the dyed yarn without payment of duty. Likewise, it is alleged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Subhakti Textiles Limited, the daily stock reports contained the details of the total receipt of Texturised Yarn by M/s. Samarpan Textiles Pvt. Limited and M/s. Bee Gee Leasing Investment Pvt. Limited from M/s. Subhakti Textiles Limited and, that the difference in quantity of yarn mentioned in the daily stock reports and the Inward Registers represent the quantity non-duty paid Texturised Yarn cleared from M/s. Subhakti Textiles Limited as follows:- Quantity as per Daily stock Reports Quantity as per Inward Register Difference M/s. Samarpan Textiles Pvt. Limited 2,82,005.73 Kgs 19,22,236.77 Kgs 89,768.60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,123.508Kgs of Twisted Yarn which is alleged to have been cleared by M/s. Samarpan Textiles Pvt. Limited to M/s. Subhtex India Pvt. Limited. The quantity of 1,12,928.26Kgs of Texurised Yarn which is alleged to have been clandestine cleared by M/s. Subhakti Textiles to M/s. Bee Gee Leasing Investment Pvt. Limited baased on the difference between the alleged daily stock reports and Inward Register of and M/s. Bee Gee Leasing Investment Pvt. Limited. Accordingly, the duty demand of ₹ 24,93,456/- was made on and M/s. Bee Gee Leasing Investment Pvt. Limited in respect of quantity of 1,12,928.26Kgs. The quantity of 2,03,123.508Kgs of Twisted Yarn alleged to have been cleared by M/s. Samarpan Textiles Pvt. Limited without payment of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that other than these documents there are mere statements, therefore, the appellant have requested the Adjudicating Authority for cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon but the cross-examination was not granted. He submits that in the absence of proof of submission of documents under letter dated 12/13.08.1997, it is necessary for the Adjudicating Authority to grant the cross-examination before relying on such statements. He further submits that the persons who are alleged to have written those records, which are said to have been submitted under letter dated 12/13.08.1997, were neither examined nor have been identified. To support his contention, he relied on the following case laws:- (a) Basudev Garg vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the said documents were accepted and therefore, these documents cannot be doubted. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that the entire defense of the ld. Counsel of the appellant is that, that the entire case was made out on the basis of documents said to have been submitted under the covering letter dated 12/13.08.1997 by Shri R.R. Gupta. However, the letter dated 12/13.08.1997 could not be provided by the department to the appellants therefore, in the absence of such letter, the claim of the department that all the relied documents were submitted by Shri R.R. Gupta stands failed. As regards other documents relied upon such as, statements of various persons, we find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
