9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laring the capacity and dimensions and by not including in the value of goods the cost of free parts supplied along with the goods, confirmed the demand for duty issued to them and imposed penalties. 2. The contention of the common Counsel for the appellants with regard to Polymech Plast Machines Ltd. is this. In the course of the proceedings before the Commissioner, the appellant had asked for, and had been granted, permission to cross-examine its managing director, personnel manager and accounts manager, whose statements were relied upon in the show cause notice. Cross-examination of these persons concluded on 20-3-1996. In the submission filed on 29-3-1996, the appellant had requested for a personal hearing. The Commissioner has passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 4. The contentions with regard to the other two appellants are these. Hearing was not granted to these two firms. The statements of K.R. Bhuva, in his capacity of partner of Plastico and director of Plastomech Equipments Pvt. Ltd., admitting contraventions were retracted by him and therefore cannot be relied upon. 5. It is not disputed that these two assessees did not file reply to the show cause notice or asked for hearing. The provisions of Section 11AC of the Act do not provide any hearing to be granted without it being asked on the notice under that section. Counsel for the appellant is not able to advance before us any argument or cite any judgment which impel us to conclude that in a situation in which the assessee had not ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclude that the statements were not voluntary. About 20 customers who bought the goods of the appellant had in their statements confirmed before the officers that the machines that were received were of different capacity and dimensions which were shown in the invoice or contract. They have also confirmed the receipt of spare parts along with the machines. Vikas Madan, the sales manager of these three appellants at Delhi had also confirmed in his statement that the goods that he supplied, installed and serviced were of different capacity than shown. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that buyers of the goods admitted that they paid extra money over and above the contracted price for supply of the goods may be correct. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
