9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It appears from the record of previous proceedings of this Bench in this case that, at no stage, the appellants have turned up in spite of notice. Every time, notice of hearing was issued in the address of the appellants furnished in the memo of appeal. However, it returned with the postal remark factory closed . There is no evidence on record to show that the appellants have been keen to follow up this appeal. It appears that they are not interested in prosecuting this case. 3. I have carefully examined the records and heard ld. JDR, Shri V.K. Verma. 4. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing the facility of input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the goods in question. All the suppliers, whose names figured in the relevant invoices, stated that they had sold and consigned the material under the invoices to M/s. Mianji and had collected the cost of the materials from the latter. They also stated that they neither claimed nor received any freight from M/s. Mianji. They further stated that the transportation of the goods from Mandi Govindgarh to the factory of M/s. Mianji was arranged by the consignee themselves and further that the truck numbers shown in the invoices were given by the consignee at the time of issue of the invoices. Subsequently, a statement of Shri Jagdamba Prasad Singh, Managing Director of the appellant-company, was also recorded, wherein he stated that he did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector of the appellant-company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The proposal was contested by the appellants in reply to the show cause notice. The jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner, who adjudicated the dispute, dropped the proceedings after recording a finding that the totality and balance of evidence on record did not substantiate the charges framed in the show cause notice . The order of adjudication was reviewed and department s appeal came up before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the department s appeal by setting aside the order of the Dy. Commissioner. Hence the present appeal of the party. 5. Ld. JDR, Shri V.K. Verma has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have considered the grounds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record that the appellants have not taken any steps to examine any functionary of any of the transporting companies to prove this version of Shri Ranjit Singh. The appellants also have had no answer to the department s finding that two out of the four transporting companies were non-existent. The other two transporting companies, who were existent and whose statements were recorded by the Central Excise officers, disowned the GRs, which were resumed by the officers from the appellants factory and stood in the name of the said transporting companies. This set-back in evidence has not been overcome by the appellants. Though the appellants stated that they had made payments to the suppliers by cheques/drafts, no attempt was made to prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
