TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss, ld. advocate for appellants and Ms. Aruna Gupta, ld. DR. 3.Briefly, the charges confirmed by order impugned are as follows and are for the period from 10-7-1982 to 9-5-1985 : - (1) Clearance of processed fabrics without duty payment though charges were collected through bills on letterheads. (2) Clearance of processed fabrics without proper duty payment as charges were partly collected through regular invoices and partly through bills on letterheads. (3) Clearances of processed fabrics without duty payment by misdeclaring nature of processing as "scouring" to fraudulently claim exemption, while actually goods were crinkled and dyed. (4) Clearances of processed fabrics without proper duty payment by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate submits that deptt. had relied on a number of statements of customers but had restricted cross-examination to 5 witnesses out of which only 3 were cross-examined. He also submitted that : (i) Vijayan Nambiar had exceeded authority to sign letterhead bills and could not be cross-examined. (ii) Prosecution in court on same facts had failed. (iii) Procedure followed was known to deptt. and hence extended period was not invokable. (iv) He cites 1994 (70) E.L.T. 102 Tri. - Collector v. Naveen Glass Works and 1990 (45) E.L.T. 104 Tri. - Sayaji Iron Engg. Co. v. Collector. (v) Order pursuant to show cause notice dated 19-6-86 for period 1982-85 (same period) had dropped the same charge of underval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation by establishing a preponderance of probability and not on any mathematical accuracy. Therefore, the appellants' acquittal in a court of law, where evidence is evaluated as per Evidence Act and accurate proofs are necessary, cannot stand in the way of our considering this preponderance of probability. We have examined the order of Collector (Appeals) on valuation matter referred to by ld. Advocate above. The ld. Collector (Appeals) had merely considered whether margin of profit of customer would be includible in the assessable value and had held that this was to be excluded. As against this, the charge in the present matter is totally different i.e. misdeclaration of lower processing charges on factory invoices. The two issues are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not constitute a fatal flaw in the order impugned. Firstly, the department's allegations are also based on documents viz. letterhead bills and factory invoices v. Customer's invoices which had been seized. No credible explanation could be given at investigation stage. We have already rejected the explanation that these were solely Vijayan's handiwork without any authority, as discussed above. These documents told a story which was confirmed by the customers who received the processed goods in their depositions. There is nothing on record to show that these were not voluntarily given. There is also nothing on record to show that they were effectively retracted within close proximity of the Revenue obtaining them. On the contrary, none retr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
