9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and further imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on appellants Nos. 2 3, of Rs. 2,00,000/- on appllent No. 4 and of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on appellants Nos. 5 6 under Rule 209A of the Rules. 2. The appellant No. 1 is firm, while other appellants except appellant No. 3 are its partners. The appellant No. 3 is an authorized signatory of the firm. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. Their factory premises were searched by the officers of the Anti-evasion branch of central excise on 10-9-1996 and 11-9-1996 and as a result thereof several incriminating documents were recovered. The scrutiny of the documents/record revealed that they were using two set of G. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and presumptions and as such, deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 6. The perusal of the impugned order shows that all the requisite documents were supplied to the appellants in terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 3-1-2000 vide which the case was sent back to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision after supplying the documents to the appellants. Even Shri Anil Kumar, appellant, partner of the firm, confirmed vide letter dated 6-6-2000 of having inspected various records and also stated that he did not wish any photocopy of any document. Therefore, there had been no viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S D authorities. 8. The argument of the Counsel that panchnama drawn was defective and vague, cannot be attached any credence. The details of all records seized from the premises of the appellants, had been recorded. The mere omission to give page numbers, did not render the panchnama defective. Moreover, the appellants knew the detail of the record resumed from their factory premises by the officers during the course of the search. They inspected the entire record during the adjudication proceedings. The appellants had not been able to challenge the correctness of the details of the supply of wires and cables, received from them, by the railways and DGS D authorities and the payments received by them from these authorities. Compariso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
