9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company (appellant No. 1) has sought waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount as well as the penalty, as detailed in the impugned order, while in other stay applications, detailed above, the appellants Nos. (2) to (4) have sought waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amounts of Rs. 20 lakhs each as imposed on them by the Commissioner under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. 3. The facts giving rise to these stay applications may briefly be stated as under : 4. The company (appellant No. 1) was engaged in the manufacture of texturised and drawn twisted polyester yarn. Appellants Nos. (2) and (3) were the Directors while appellant No. (4) was the Manager of the company at the relevant time. The company allegedly received 3,82,962 Kgs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, as detailed above, on the other appellants. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned order of the learned Commissioner confirming duty demand and imposing penalty on the appellants had been based on no legal evidence but only on surmises and conjectures and on the statement of one Shri B.M. Gupta of the company M/s. HPL from whom some loose sheets were allegedly recovered, and who was never even produced for cross-examination during adjudication proceedings for testing the veracity of his statement. According to the Counsel no incriminating document in the form of invoice or gate pass etc. regarding the receipt of polyester yarn by the appellants from M/s. HPL and manufacture of texturised drawn/twiste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and contradicted, that no incriminating document in the form of invoice or in any other form was recovered from the office of the company HPL regarding the sale of the polyester yarn by them to the appellants during the period in question. Even alleged entries in the loose papers recovered from the chamber of B.M. Gupta, Vice President of that company did not indicate in clear words, the name of the company (appellant No. 1) to whom the sale of the polyester yarn was made by M/s. HPL company. None of those entries carried signatures or even initial of any of the appellants in token of receipt of the polyester yarn from the company M/s. HPL. 9. Besides this, no polyester yarn was found lying in the factory premises or at any other place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
