TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n worsted yarn falling under Chapter 51 (sub-heading 5103.10) of the CETA. They were clearing this yarn in cones in the guise of yarn in plain (straight) reel hanks and wrongly availing benefit of Exemption Notification No. 26/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 as amended by Notification No. 90/94-C.E., dated 25-4-1994. On receipt of information, their factory premises were visited by the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise in the presence of Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal, Director of the appellants company. The staff conducted physical verification of the fully finished goods lying in the stock and the same were found in order as per balance recorded in the RG. 1 Register. However, list of the various by buyers to whom the woollen yarn was sold by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd as such they were not liable to pay the duty being entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 26/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994. They also prayed for summoning of the witnesses whose statements were recorded, for cross-examination during the adjudication proceedings, but the Commissioner did not cause the presence of those witnesses and proceeded to decide the case. He, through the impugned order, confirmed the duty demand as mentioned in the show cause notice and also imposed penalty of equal amount payable with interest on them. 4. The appellants have come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the validity of the impugned order on the ground that it has been based only on surmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of plain (straight) reel hanks during the period in question (25-4-1994 to 31-3-1995) and wrongly availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 26/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994. To substantiate these allegations, the evidence relied upon before the adjudicating authority, by the Revenue was the statements of the buyers whose names were allegedly supplied by the appellants themselves and they belonged to Amritsar and Ludhiana. All those buyers in their statements allegedly admitted the sale of worsted woollen yarn in cones, to them, by the appellants. 11. But it remains undisputed that statements of all those buyers were recorded at the back of the appellants during investigation. None of them was produced for cross-examination for question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises. No document was produced by any of the witnesses, to corroborate his statement regarding purchase of the worsted woollen yarn in cones and not in plain (straight) reel hanks, from the appellants. Rather, the invoices, the copies of which have been placed on file by the appellants, showed that they had sold only worsted woollen yarn in hanks and not in cones. The description of the goods given by them in the invoices was worsted woollen yarn 'H' i.e. in hanks. None of the invoices indicated the sale of worsted woollen yarns in cones to any of the buyers (witnesses). Even from the factory premises of the appellants no unaccounted in the statutory record, cones of the worsted woollen yarn, were found by the Preventive Staff. Rather on ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
