9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and also admitted that company had not recorded the production of CTD bars proportionately worked out for these two months on the basis of electricity consumption for the subsequent months; he also admitted that they had issued two bills with the same serial number on 31-1-2005; admitted the recovery of duplicate invoice book bearing Sl. No. 1 to 40; admitted removal of goods produced in September and October, 2004 without payment of duty. In his second statement recorded on 8-5-2006, he also admitted that he did not know the names of customers and he did not have the records for the sales; that the duplicate invoice found in respect of the sale to his own firm M/s. Kiritkumar and Co., Mumbai was cancelled. The transporter in his statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 (183) E.L.T. 10l (Tri. - Del.)] (4) M/s. Quality Exports Chemicals [2002 (140) E.L.T. 362 (All.)] (5) M/s. Grauer Weil (I) Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 618 (Tri.)] (6) M/s. Universal Polythelene Inds. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 228 (Tri. - Kol.)] (7) M/s. Sharma Chemicals [2001 (130) E.L.T. 271 (Tri. - Kol.)] (8) Sh. Gian Mahtani [1999 (110) E.L.T. 400 (S.C.)] (9) M/s. Devas Metal [2006 (193) E.L.T. 12l (Tri. - Del.)] (10) Sh. Rakesh Singhal [2007 (208) E.L.T. 432 (Tri. - Del.)] 3. On the other hand ld. SDR submits that the Department s case is not only on the basis of electricity consumption. He submits that the Director has clearly admitted the production and clandestine removal and since the director did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment s case. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held that what is admitted need not be proved. However, as rightly pointed out by the ld. Chartered Accountant, mere admission would not be sufficient. It has to be examined whether admission is acceptable as evidence. In this case it is difficult to accept that after consuming more than 1.15 lakh units of electricity, no production whatsoever was turned out. The appellants have not been able to bring out any evidence to show what exactly happened during September and October and what for the electricity was consumed if no production took place. Even in support of the contention that all the production went waste, no evidence whatsoever has been pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
