9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Ganpatlal Sancheti and Gautam Chand Sancheti, the two partners of the Unit No. 1 were present there. 4.2 Shri Gautam Chand Sancheti, during the inspection of the above units informed the officers that the Unit No. 1 had been engaged in the possessing of Textiles since 1969 at 27, Light Industrial Area, Jodhpur, that in the year 1977, its adjoining plot No. 27A was allotted to M/s. Kamala Industries, Jodhpur, and a portion of that plot No. 27A, was allotted to M/s. Chhajer Textiles, Jodhpur in the year 1981; that all the three units were located in the same compound and there were no demarcations, or boundary walls to separate these units from one another and that the entry of the units was also common. 4.3 The Unit No. 3 was found engaged in the process of stentering of cotton and man-made fabrics for which it had a stenter machine filled with Electric Motor and Diesel engine, a boiler and a Felt Machine. The process of stentering of man-made fabrics, if undertaken with the aid of power was also chargeable to Additional Excise duty at effective rates as prescribed under Notification No. 48/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990, as amended. 4.4 The officers found one stenter machine, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.9 During the course of investigation, all the three units were represented by Shri Gautam Chand Sancheti only. The fact of his being the representative of all the three units was confirmed by him in his statement dated 20-6-1994 tendered by him in response to summons issued by the Superintendent (AE), Central Excise, Jodhpur. 4.10 From the investigation of the case, it appeared that the Unit No. 3 had carried out processing of cotton/man-made fabrics with the aid of power for the last 5 years. From the investigation, it also appeared that the stentering machine was installed and was being operated with the aid of power in Unit No. 3 for the last about 8 to 10 years. The fact of installation of the machine and its running with the aid of power for stentering of cotton and man-made fabrics was confirmed by Shri Gautam Chand Sancheti, who had represented Unit No. 3. Though one, Shri Nagender Prakash, claiming himself to be the Authorised Signatory of the Unit No. 3 had stated in his letter dated 25-7-1994, and statement dated 9-10-1994, that the stentering machine with electric motor was purchased by the Unit No. 3 on 22-12-1993 from M/s. J.S. Enterprises, Jodhpur under their B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit. 4.13 The Central Excise officers also obtained information regarding monthwise power consumption by Unit No. 3 during the last about 5 years from the RSEB, Jodhpur. The Unit No. 3 had an elecrtric connection of 60 HP. The average monthly consumption of power of Unit No. 3 during the period from July, 1990 to February, 1994 came to 6570 units. Taking into account the other electric fittings in the premises of Unit No. 3, as detailed in Panchnama dated 23-2-1994, such a high consumption of power by the unit could be attributed to nothing but the use of power for running the stentering machine by Unit No. 3. 4.14 The Unit No. 3 did not intimate, or otherwise bring to the notice of the department the fact of their being engaged in the process of cotton and man-made fabrics with the aid of power. They carried out these processes without obtaining any Central Excise licence/register and cleared the excisable goods, so processed, without payment of duty and observing Central Excise formalities by wilfully suppressing the facts from the Department with apparent intention to evade duty. The Unit No. 3 stentered 3450513.68 sq. metres of man-made fabrics with the aid of power during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been done now by the appellant. 2.3 Theoretically speaking, there is no bar to split up cases on the basis of current liability and past liability. It is often done by the Revenue for good reasons. 2.4 For current liability, show cause notice is required to be issued within the period of six months from the date of detection of the case for effecting recovery of duty for the six months as also for preventing the seized goods from being returned on account of application of Section 110 of the Customs Act to like matters in Central Excise by a notification under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It requires quicker and less complicated adjudication on questions of fact and law because the adjudicating authority is not required to go into the mens rea on the part of the assessees for evasion of duty. This object can be easily achieved by adjudication at the level of the Assistant Commissioner. Questions involving current assessment also needs quick decision. This is also better achieved at Assistant Commissioner s level. 2.5 On the other hand, allegations of wilful misstatement, collusion etc. over the past five years are very serious in nature. These are supposed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal was dismissed as time barred by one day and the appeal of Moolchand Sujanmal was allowed by an order-in-appeal. Learned Consultant, draws attention to the observation of the Collector (Appeals) on the weight of evidence to be attached to the statement of G.C. Sancheti :- The extent of coercion that the Department put Shri Gautam Chand through is obvious from the fact that even without any authorisation by M/s.Chhajar Textiles, the officers forced Shri Gautam Chand to give statement on behalf of M/s. Chhajar Textiles in spite of his informing the officers that he was neither aware nor authorised about the affairs of this firm. This single fact alone shows the kind of arbitrariness that has been lead in this case. Retracted statements cannot be relied upon as they loose evidential value after retraction without independent corroboration. The retraction was very prompt and without any delay, namely, within two days. Learned Consultant further points out that Revenue s appeal against Collector (Appeals ) order in the case of Moolchand Sujanmal has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 3-11-1997 holding specifically that the processed fabric seized from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order as to on which person the said summons were served on behalf of the appellant. If the summons have been served on G.C. Sancheti himself as appears to be the case, how could the proprietrix of the appellant firm could know it? 3.1 Apart from that it is also pertinent to note that credentials of G.C. Sancheti should have been recorded in his statement as to how he could be aware of the functioning of the appellant s unit or in what capacity he was representing the interest of the appellant firm. If such simple common sense was not applied in recording the statement of G.C. Sancheti vis-a-vis the appellant herein, it becomes an unreliable statement so far as the appellant is concerned. 3.2 It is also relevant to note at this stage that G.C. Sancheti has retracted his statement only two days after i.e. on 14-2-1994. Adjudicating authority has termed this retraction as unreliable particularly when the said person did not confirm about the said retraction in his subsequent statement dated 23-2-1994. This finding of the adjudicating authority is also untenable. On looking into that statement, it is found that this statement is in the form of question and answers. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
