9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that M/s. National Steel Industries Ltd. manufacture C.R. coils/Galvanised sheets; that they are engaged in trading activity with M/s. Mahabir Prasad Co., Ghaziabad; that they were issuing Central Excise invoices to Mahabir Prasad Co.; that a show cause notice dated 7-4-2000 was issued to the Respondents for imposing penalties as Mahabir Prasad Co. were taking credit for passing the same to their customers on the strength of fake invoices issued by National Steel Industries Ltd.; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 36/2002, dated 31-10-2002 imposed penalty on all the three Respondents, that the Additional Commissioner, however, did not impose any penalty on M/s. Mahabir Prasad Co.; that on appeals filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR also mentioned that Shri Hemant Manjrekar had accepted the fact in his statement that invoice No. 36 was prepared by him; that the request for cross-examination of the handwriting expert was not acceded to as he had given his conclusion in written manner and if there was any doubt it should have been clarified by the Respondents by giving pointwise objection before the Adjudicating Authority which was not done by them; that cross-examination is not mandatory to be allowed in all the cases. He finally submitted that there is a direct link against the Respondents as invoice No. 46 was written in handwriting of Hemant Manjrekar; that if there was no nexus between the Respondents and M/s. Mahabir Prasad Co. it would have not been possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given his opinion on the basis of comparison of body writing of invoice No. 46 with the specimen writing of Shri Hemant Manjreker. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also given his specific finding that the Appellants were well within their right to cross-examine the handwriting expert on the report of which they have been indicted. He also relied upon the inspection report submitted by the jurisdictional officer entrusted with the inquiry since the report clearly states that the fake invoices were generated at the end of the buyer. On the basis of these findings the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to link the Respondents with the fraudulent activity indulged into by Mahabir Prasad Co. at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
