2000 (3) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against Order-in-Original imposing penalty and confirming duty. Charges include clearance of processed fabrics without duty payment, misdeclaration of processing nature, undervaluation, and misdeclaration of yarn counts and fabric width.

Charge 1:
- Appellant's advocate argues lack of opportunity for cross-examination of exporters and employee.
- Department failed to correlate letterhead bills to specific consignments.

Charge 2:
- Advocate highlights lack of opportunity to cross-examine exporters.
- Exporters' statements crucial for upholding the charge.

Charge 3:
- Advocate emphasizes lack of cross-examination of relevant parties.
- Statements of parties involved in processing disputed.

Charge 4:
- Similar defense presented by advocate for lack of proper duty payment.

Charge 5:
- Advocate mentions contradictions in statements of relevant parties.
- Allegations of misdeclaration of yarn counts and fabric width.

Advocate's submissions:
- Lack of cross-examination opportunities.
- Exceeded authority of signatory.
- Previous court prosecution failure.
- Non-invocable extended period.
- Cites relevant case laws for defense.

Department's submissions:
- Documents show discrepancies in fabric processing.
- Exporters' statements damaging for the case.
- Statements of exporters support the charges.
- Legal significance of non-availability for cross-examination discussed.

Final Decision:
- Tribunal considers preponderance of probability for Revenue to sustain allegations.
- Appellants' acquittal in court not hindrance for Tribunal's assessment.
- Physical control not sufficient defense against evasion.
- Non-availability of witnesses for cross-examination not fatal flaw.
- Revenue's evidence based on seized documents and customer depositions.
- Lack of retraction of statements by witnesses strengthens Revenue's case.
- Tribunal dismisses the appeal, finding Revenue's position established.