9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d/imposed on appellants No. 1, M/s. HRS Fibres (P) Ltd., and further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each had been imposed on other appellants. The appellants No. 1 is a private limited company (in short referred to as Company ) engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. On scrutiny of the record of the company, it revealed that they were clearing cotton yarn without payment of duty in the guise of plain reel hanks. They were supplying the yarn to the other appellants. The company was thus availing the duty benefit, by mis-description of the goods in the invoices, which were exempt from payment of Central Excise Duty under Notification No. 5/98, dated 2-6-1998. They were also clearing the cotton yarn in the form of cones, but describing the same as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were admittedly recorded at the back of the company, appellants No. 1, and their prayer for cross-examination of these witnesses was also declined. Therefore, the statements of both these witnesses could not be legally used against the appellants. 3. Apart from this, the evidence of both the above referred witnesses does not find corroboration from any other tangible evidence. The slips which they were allegedly maintaining while receiving the goods from the company, appellants No. 1, in the godowns, and wherein they were allegedly describing the goods as cotton yarn in the form of cones, were never shown to the company, appellants No. 1. The copies of these slips were also never supplied to the company. Even during the examination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om any other reliable evidence. In that case also, the statements of the witnesses were relied upon by the adjudicating authority for holding that the assessee gave the misdescription of the goods by describing the same as worsted woollen yarn H in plain reel hanks, whereas in reality, the assessee had cleared the worsted woollen yarn in cones. But their statements were held to be not admissible in evidence as they were not permitted to be cross-examined by the assessee and their evidence also did not find corroboration from any other evidence. That order of the Tribunal had been even upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court when it was challenged in appeal before that Court, as reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 265 (P H) = 2002 (82) ECC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
