9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1990 to March, 1995 the movement of cut tobacco and cigarettes was placed under strict excise control and until October, 1993 the fact is that the suppliers of the cut tobacco were under the physical control system. From October, 1993 till March, 1995 the physical control system was discontinued and thereafter cut tobacco moved under the procedures specified by Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A show cause notice dated 23-11-1995 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi alleging inter alia that M/s. TTCL is a dummy company se up and controlled by M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. to evade payment of duty and that the franchise agreement is merely a fa ade for illegal operations and that GTC Industries Limited was the real manufacturer of the cigarettes. Notice alleged clandestine clearance of cigarettes without payment of duty and without accounting for the same in Central Excise statutory records without issue of gate passes/invoices and without correctly reflecting receipt and consumption of raw materials out of which cigarettes were manufactured. The extended period of limitation was applied in the notice which also proposed confiscation as well as penal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice No. V(24)6-GTC(TTCL)/Adj./95, dt.23-11-95 Ref : Your letter No. ______________ I am directed to refer to your letter No. ______ dt. 1-1-96 requesting supply of annexure/relied upon documents in respect of the Show Cause Notice mentioned above. You may contact the Deputy Director General, Anti-Evasion, Central Excise, Madras Zonal Unit, 107, Haman Road, 3rd Floor, T. Nagar, Madras - 600007 and obtain photocopies/carryout inspection of relevant records within 15 days of receipt of this letter. Your reply to the Show Cause Notice should be filed within 30 days thereafter. 7. The appellants requested for supply of copies at the earliest since they had an office in Delhi also and since it was not possible for them to carry out inspection of records at Chennai. Vide letter dated 10th July, 1996 the department supplied some of the documents annexed to the show cause notice, namely : (1) Annexure-C containing list of statements recorded and relied upon; (2) Annexure-B containing list of mazhars drawn and relied upon; (3) Relied upon documents in Annexure D-1; and (4) Annexure-E to the show cause notice. 8. It is pertinent to note all those docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained in that letter Directorate General Anti Evasion was to make all arrangements for making copies of relied upon documents and GTC was to send their representatives for obtaining the copies. Even though time was fixed for obtaining the copies from 26th November to 20th December, 1996. GTC representatives had not visited Anti Evasion office at all. They are only taking objection to every arrangement. This is being done to obstruct proceedings. Shri Mongia stated that according to the aforesaid order dated 14th/19th November, arrangements for making copies are to be made by the Directorate General of Anti Evasion. GTC was to collect the copies. There should be no requirement for GTC Officers to be present throughout the period of making of copies. It would be wasting the time of GTC representatives to be present throughout the copy making. He, therefore, suggested that let the copies be made by the Directorate General of Anti Evasion. Thereafter GTC will depute representatives to collect the copies. Shri Bajpai pointed out that this can create problems as GTC was returning copies supplied to them holding them to be not legible. If GTC s representative is present, he would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-1-97. 10. Subsequently the representative of the appellants visited the office of the DGAE, New Delhi for obtaining the photocopies of the documents but the same were not supplied. In the next hearing the department again contended that it was not possible to make photocopies of the documents. The Commissioner, after considering the objections of the department, recorded that the question of supply of documents and the modalities thereof had been considered in great detail in the hearing held on 24-12-1996 particularly in the context of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanghi Textiles Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 357 and only thereafter directions were passed with the consent of both sides. The Commissioner specifically recorded that any change in these orders would only introduce unwarranted delay in proceedings and he reconfirmed the directions given on 24-12-1996. The proceedings dated 22-1-1997 are reproduced below : The following were present : 1. Director General of Anti Evasion GTC (i) Shri N.K. Bajpai, Advocate Shri S.K. Mongia (ii) Shri K.K. Verma, Supdt. Vice Presi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the adjudicating authority the department again moved an application for review of the directions passed by the predecessor adjudicating authority who had directed supply of photocopies of all relevant documents. Although no photocopies of documents had been supplied to them, the appellants agreed that where the photocopies were supplied they would not ask for inspection of original documents and would only indentify few more documents for inspection, if felt necessary. Accordingly the adjudicating authority directed supply of photocopies and adjourned the primary hearing to 30th September, 1997. It was pointed out by the appellants vide their letter dated 26-11-1997 that copies of Annexure D-2 as supplied had contained variations and were also not complete and they enclosed a specific list of remaining documents not received with request for supply of the same. 12. The directions of the previous adjudicating authority were reviewed on 23-2-1998 and directions were given for supply of only representative samples of cash memos, invoices, gate passes, registers and records and the appellants were directed to begin inspection and make copies of whatever documents they required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments and as far as practicable at this stage, to identify the documents essentially necessary for the department so that the non-essential surplusage could be weeded out to the extent possible to reduce the number of documents which petitioner may make copies of. The Adjudicating Authority was also of the opinion that unless a complete list of essential documents as made out by the DGAE is supplied to the Noticees as well as to the Adjudicating Authority, we may not be in a position to focus our attention as to how far the inspection work has progressed. As per the Supreme Court s judgment such documents essentially necessary for the department so that non-essential surplusage could be weeded out to the extent possible to reduce the number of documents which the petitioner may make copies of. DGAE will ensure that the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sanghi Textile Processors case is followed in letter and spirit. This exercise should be completed by the DGAE within a month s time and a list of all such essential documents along with photocopies of such documents should be made available to all the noticees within 45 days. From the date of receipt of such photocopi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
