TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.09 Lakh and the evidence in respect of the said demand was 136 LRs and daily book register and there was no evidence that so produced that could be relied upon. The investigation was not carried out at the end of the actual transporters and from the testimony of the staff member, who was examined, it transpired that M/s Aishwarya Roadlines, the alleged transporter was mere a booking agent. Demand of ₹ 65.85 Lakh - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal found that the documents recovered from the Octroi Department were only photocopies. The statements of transporters were without reference to any documentary evidence. Even the transporters were not allowed to be cross-examined. In respect of the demand of ₹ 55.92 Lakh, no investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeks leave to amend the appeal to restrict it in respect of Respondent No.1, as the Appellant states that separate Appeals are already filed in respect of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Leave to delete Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the array of parties is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 4. This Appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 22 March 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 arising out of order in original dated 11 November 2011. 5. The following questions of law have been framed for our consideration. 1. Whether a case of clandestine clearance of excisable goods without payment of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock with accounted stock, shortage of finished goods on which duty was payable was found. In the search operation carried out in the residential premises, record contained in hard-disks was collected, statements of staff members were also recorded and the staff members gave their explanations. Thereafter, further searches were carried out, which resulted in a show cause notice dated 26 March 2010. The show cause notice directed the Respondent to show cause why an amount of ₹ 2.82 Crores towards Central Excise Duty alleged to have been evaded should not be recovered and penalty should not be imposed on the Directors. The Adjudicating Authority proceeded to adjudicate and confirmed the demands under several heads by the order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal v. CCE 2015-TIOL-2230-HC-DEL-CX to emphasize upon the degree of proof required. The person whose statement was relied upon by the Appellant was not allowed to be cross-examined by the Respondent. Thus, the Tribunal rightly found that there were serious lacunae. 9. As regards the second demand of ₹ 65.85 Lakh, the Tribunal found that the documents recovered from the Octroi Department were only photocopies. The statements of transporters were without reference to any documentary evidence. Even the transporters were not allowed to be cross-examined. In respect of the demand of ₹ 55.92 Lakh, no investigation was carried out at the end of the consignee. The demand of ₹ 58 Lakh was based on theoretical calculations. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
