9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able Company has sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 89,38,564.08 with equal amount of penalty and personal penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2. The learned Counsel for both the appellants while arguing the stay applications has contended that there is no tangible evidence on record to prove the very manufacture of insulated wires and cables, during the years 95 to 98 by the appellants much less the clearance of the same without payment of duty by them. They had no machinery even for carrying out the manufacture of insulated wires and cables. Rather they were only manufacturing domestic wires and cables. The Counsel has also pointed out that fair opportunity for producing defence evidence was also not afforded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the firm deposited Rs. 8.46 crores in that account and that money was the sale proceeds of the goods manufactured and cleared by him (Refer Para 88 of the impugned order). 5. Similarly, Bhushan Kumar Gupta, partner of appellant No. 2, M/s. Deepak Cable Company, in his written submission, admitted the clearance of insulated wires and cables during the disputed years without issuing the invoices. He undertook even to deposit duty as soon as possible. He also admitted the deposit of Rs. 94.45 lakhs, Rs. 180.15 lakhs, Rs. 142.29 lakhs, Rs. 137.59 lakhs and Rs. 6.46 lakhs respectively during the years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 (up to August, 1998), in the bank which he earned from the sale of goods manufactured and clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s referred to above and the detailed reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order, we do not find that the appellants have got a strong prima facie case. The evasion of the central excise duty rather stands admitted by them as is evident from the statements of Tara Chand Gupta and Bhushan Kumar Gupta, referred to above. 8. The perusal of the impugned order also shows that the appellants were afforded ample opportunity to defend themselves and to substantiate their defence. Prima facie there had been no violation of rules of natural justice. 9. Therefore, keeping in view the facts, circumstances of the case, the evasion of huge amount of central excise duty by the appellants, issue involved and the financial posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
