9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) and imposing a penalty of Rs. 57,45,425/- (Rupees fifty seven lac forty five thousand four hundred twenty five) on the company and Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lac) on Shri Manoj Aggarwal, Director of the company. Interest is also demanded. Along with the appeals they have filed two stay petitions for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty in respect of appeal of M/s. Joshika Laminations (P) Ltd. and for waiver of predeposit of penalty in respect of Shri Manoj Aggarwal. 2. Arguing the cases for the appellants Shri M. Venkataraman, learned Counsel submits that the entire case of the Department is based on the ground that the applicant removed dutiable products like commercial plywood, blockboard, flush doors etc. by misdeclarin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nasmuch as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 15-2-2001 demanding duty for the period 1995-1999. In support of his contention learned Counsel cites and relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Takshila Spinners v. CCE reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 568. He submits that in this case the Tribunal held that whatever those witnesses stated during the investigation before Preventive Staff, could not be accepted as gospel truth by the Commissioner who was supposed to act judiciously and could rely upon only on that piece of evidence which was admissible in law. He could not legally use the uncross-examined statement of the witnesses against the appellants for holding that they cleared worsted woollen yarn in cones in the guise of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He, therefore, submits that the applicants should be directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty. 5. We have heard the submissions of both the sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made before us we note that the Department had taken the statements of a number of persons who stated that under challans only panel doors have been supplied but actually commercial plywood, blockboard and flush doors were supplied. We note further that though cross-examination of these witnesses was requested which was not allowed. The demand is also stated to be time-barred. Though the Counsel for the applicants has pleaded financial hardship, however, looking to the facts that the applicant had good business before 1999 he must h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
