2002 (5) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sidering the reply, the Commissioner vide order dated April 27, 2000, held that the respondent was liable to pay a duty of Rs. 22,44,086.79. A penalty of Rs. 22,44,087/- was also imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On failure to make the deposit, interest @ 20% had to be paid. 2.Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed an appeal. The Tribunal vide its order dated May 11, 2001, has found that the Authority had placed reliance on the statements of 15 persons recorded during investigation. These persons had not appeared during the proceedings to face cross-examination. Thus, the Commissioner had erred in recording findings on the basis of the statements of these persons. It was further held that "there was no evide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... )         "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has not erred in allowing the appeal of the party merely on the ground that the buyers, whose statements were recorded, have not been cross-examined, when the buyers did not retract their statements and whether to meet the principles of natural justice, it was not imperative on Tribunal to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority for afresh adjudication after cross-examining the witnesses ? (ii)        Whether the confessional statements of buyers placed on record are not sufficient to prove the removal of dutiable goods in the guise of exempted goods when the statements have neither been retracted nor proved otherwi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... djudicating authority. We would have also normally taken that view. However, in the present case, no cones of worsted woollen yarn which may not have been accounted for were recovered from the premises of the respondent. Similarly, no recovery of cones had been made from the premises of the buyers. Not even a single invoice indicating the supply of worsted woollen yarn cones by the respondent to any of the buyers was produced. Still further, the documents collected during the course of investigation clearly showed that the respondent had described the goods as worsted woollen yarn - hanks. Thus, the documentary evidence clearly belies the suggestion that the respondent had supplied worsted woollen cones to the respondent. 7.Lest there shou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X