9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was a search conducted in the premises of this appellant for purpose of preventive checks. During the search the statements were recorded from Printing Master as well as the Director of the appellants. A Show Cause Notice was issued dated 15-1-1992 demanding duty etc. The Appellant filed replies. After hearing the parties the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order. Hence the present appeal. 3. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Counsel appeared with Shri Willington, Advocate argued forcefully that the impugned order passed by the Collector is wrong in law. He stated that after the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills case 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507 (Del.), the levy of fine, penalty, and order of confiscation are bad in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement reveals that Nagoria s statement was absolutely true and correct. Therefore, there is a clinching evidence in this case. It is further stated by Shri S.V. Singh, that in the Bombay High Court judgment relied on by the Appellant there was allegation that there was force employed by the officer on the writ petitioner, when recording the statement. Therefore for the purpose of deciding that case the cross-examination was granted. It does not mean the facts in that case are similar to the facts in this case and the cross-examination should be granted in this case. Moreover, in the instant case when the director himself agrees that the statement given by the Production incharge was true and correct, where is the necessity of cross-exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And he also states that he was responsible for production of finished man-made fabrics and setting of different prints on fabrics. He specifically stated that the entire responsibility of production was with him only. As far as the papers seized by the department was concerned, learned Counsel, Shri Mayur Shroff vehemently contends that it was a scribbling only. In our view, the plea of the advocate cannot be accepted. Shri Nagoria in his statement has referred to that paper as one register and it stated that it showed the fortnightly production not as a scribbling but in his own hand writing. It was further stated by him that the said register was maintained by him personally just to keep watch over the finished/folded production repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
