9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em from M/s. Kejriwal Enterprises, Nangloi, Delhi and from M/s. Priyanka Metals, Delhi under the GP-1s issued by these parries. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi however issued them a show cause notice dt. 20-3-1996 and also to Shri G.D. Arora, their partner in which it was alleged that M/s. Geeta Metal Industries and M/s. Ajanta Metal Industries were two fictitious units and they were issuing only Modvatable documents to M/s. Kejriwal Enterprises and M/s. Priyanka Metals in respect of copper bars, whereas no copper bars were physically issued and actually received by them; that these documents were sold by them in the open market and on the strength of these documents the appellants availed the Modvat credit. It is further stated i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling/re-rolling mills to enable them for the accountal of their unaccounted goods; that the unaccounted copper bars were rolled by the rolling mills and their despatch to market/any other destinations were covered by these challans; that no material ever accompanied the Rule 57F(2) challans from M/s. Priyanka Metals. It is further alleged that the investigations were also conducted at the transporter s end who were shown to have transported the copper rods from rollers to various units floated by Shri Sunil Kejriwal. It was revealed that none of them had ever transported the copper rods to the aforesaid units of M/s. Kejriwal Enterprises and M/s. Priyanka Metals. This corroborated the confessions made by Shri Sunil Kejriwal and Shri K.C. Ke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion reports pertaining to the transporters as referred to in the show cause notice and (4) Any other document or record on which the department intended to proceed against them. In the same letter, they stated that since the statements on which the reliance is placed were recorded and investigations were made at their back they should also be allowed to cross-examine the concerned persons. 3. The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise however passed an Order dated 22-6-1999 in which he confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,50,342.87 on the appellants under Rule 57-I. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- on them under Rule 173Q(bb). He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri G.D. Arora under Rule 209A. The Addl. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mittedly the copies of the statements of Shri Sunil Kejriwal and Shri K.C. Kejriwal which implicate the appellants have not been supplied to them much less any cross-examination of these witnesses allowed to them even on their specific request. The adjudicating authority says that their cross-examination had already been done in another linked case and the repetition of the same process will be a loss of time as well as blockage of revenue. This observation is against the principles of natural justice and the Rule of law. The cross-examination of the same witnesses in some other proceedings in which the present appellants are not one of the party would not extinguish their right of cross-examination of the witnesses who have implicated them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
