9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules by way of basic excise duty, auxiliary duty and Cess. The appellants denied that they had manufactured canvas and claimed that they had manufactured and cleared dedhsuti only and, therefore, no amount was recoverable from them. After adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order dated 8-12-1977 confirmed the demand. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 26-8-1983. This appeal is against the said order. 2. We have heard Shri V. Sreedharan, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar for the Department. 3. The proceedings had commenced with the visit of the members of the Audit Party on 2-7-1976 to the factory of the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manager of the firm nor had any personal knowledge of the manufacturing activity and that the Audit Party had obtained the letter from him stating that no further action was to be taken thereon and it was at their instance he had styled himself as Manager in the said letter. 4. It appears from the order of the Assistant Collector that the appellants had requested that enquiries may be made of M/s. Bagaria Textiles also as to what was the nature of the cloth woven by the appellants. It appears from the order of the Assistant Collector that M/s. Bagaria Textiles had stated on enquiry by the Department, that they had supplied dedhsuti yarn to the appellants and got dedhsuti cloth manufactured by the appellants out of the said yarn, but that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of any evidence thereof it is evident that Shri Ram Pratap was dependent upon the appellants for his livelihood and his statement cannot, therefore, be ignored. This conclusion of the Collector cannot be accepted. It is significant that on 2-7-1976 Shri Ram Pratap says he knows nothing about the affairs of the appellants and again on 7-7-1976 makes a statement in the first instance regarding the general working, evidently with reference to the records, and it is only subsequently the same day that the party obtained another statement from him that the appellants that Shri Ram Pratap had no personal knowledge of the manufacturing activity. As already stated he had subbsequently filed an affidavit abbout the same. The appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Bank under the head 038". 8. It is thus seen that the Assistant Collector had drawn inference without any basis therefor. His observation that the product manufactured by the appellants should have been canvas since dedhsuti which could be classified as duck would be canvas if the weight was 8 ozs or more per sqr. yard indicates that the Assistant Collector had drawn the conclusion without any evidence whatever about the actual weight of the material per sqr. yard. 9. It has to be further seen that the entire case rests on the statement of Shri Ram Pratap. The statement is said to have been made to the Audit Party. These members of the Audit Party had no authority to record any statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act as m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
