TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nge). The facts leading to these appeals are as follows:- The appellant M/s. Shree Jagdamba Casting Pvt. Ltd. was investigated who are engaged in manufacture of MS Ingots were observed to have clandestinely cleared the finished goods to M/s. Biwadi Rolling Mills (M/s.BRMPL). It was subsequently gathered by the Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) that M/s. BRMPL is also indulging in clandestine removal and sale of finished goods manufactured by them. Resultantly, a search of various premises of M/s. BRMPL was conducted by DGCEI, New Delhi. On 04.08.2015 in the premises including the factory, the residence of Shri Satish Kumar, Shri B.D. Yadav and Shri Ankit Keriwal who were manging the entire affairs of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Order-in-Original bearing No.66/08/2017 -18 dated 13.12.2017 alongwith the order of appropriation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as already were deposited by M/s. Shree Jagdambay Castings Pvt. Ltd. Penalty of the amount of excise duty confirmed i.e. Rs. 9,68,004/- was imposed upon M/s. Shree Jagdambay Castings Pvt. Ltd. In addition, penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- each was imposed upon remaining two co-noticees i.e. Shri Pawan Bansal and M/s.BRMPL. Being aggrieved, three of the appellants assiled the said order. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.493-495 dated 27.11.2018 has modified the aforesaid order only to the extent of reducing the penalty of BRMPL by Rs. 1,00,000/- Still being aggrieved three of the appellants are before this Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. After hearing both the parties, I observe that the main basis for the adjudicating authority below has been the statement of Shri Pawan Bansal, Director of M/s. Shree Jagdambay Castings Pvt. Ltd. as was recorded on 29.07.2013. I simultaneously observe that the said statement got subsequently retracted by Shri Pawan Bansal. It is further apparent that though the appellants received the relied upon documents, but they have been aggrieved of those not being legible. Legible copies thereof were insisted but were never made available. Adjudicating Authority below is observed to have ignored the repeated requests of the assessees for the legible documents. Copies of documents though are on record but perusal makes it clear that many of them ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought to have been summoned and cross-examined before the Commissioner for which the appellants repeatedly asked for the cross-examination to disprove the allegations wrongly made in the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority has rejected the same by relying on certain cases which are decided along before the insertion of Section 9 D in the Central Excise Act, 1944 in 1985. 7. The adjudicating authority has not cared to be guided by the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court as well as other High Courts and the Supreme Court as also the Tribunal in various cases wherein it has been emphatically held that cross-examination of the investigating officers as well as persons from whom statements are taken and used against the assesse....