9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of 5 months of the receipt of this order. Remand order was issued on 10-1-2005 and present impugned order once again confirmed the demand for duty and interest imposing penalties, confiscated plant and machinery and hence the appeal. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 2-9-2008, Ld. Advocate Shri Prakash Shah on behalf of the appellant had raised primarily the issue that the order has been passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly this issue was taken up first and Ld. SDR on behalf of the Revenue submitted the letter received by him from the Additional Commissioner, Daman Commissionerate, wherein it was confirmed that the order was passed by the concerned jurisdictional Commissioner. Relevant paragraph of the letter is reproduced as under :- In this connection, it is submitted that the unit M/s. Subhtex (I) Pvt. Ltd is located at Plot No. 1201/1, 3rd Phase, G.I.D.C, Vapi and the said address comes under the jurisdiction of Central Excise, Division-I, Vapi also verified the above facts on the basis of Registration on SACER system of the division and he has certified that the assessee is holding Central Excise Registration No. AABCS3969EXM001 and showing Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he was incharge of Subhakti Textiles, Samarpan Textiles and Bee Gee Leasing, whereas this was not the case. He submits that there is a violation of natural justice inspite of direction of the Tribunal in not giving the copy of letter in which Shri R.S. Gupta who had submitted daily stock report and the delivery challans. He also submits that there is no indication as to who maintained daily stock reports and who prepared delivery challans and Shri R.S. Gupta has stated that these were maintained by his clerk. In the absence of any name of the person who had maintained the same, the genuineness of the documents itself is not acceptable. He also submits that the person was not made available for cross-examination. Further he also submits that prima facie they have strong case and therefore unconditional stay against recovery may be granted. On behalf of the Samarpan Textile, He submitted that factory of the appellants has closed down due to labour problems and the appellants suffered the huge loss and the financial condition is vary precarious and if they are made to deposit the duty amount, it would cause them un-due hardship. He also submitted that financial position of the Bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-06. 9. 5-12-2006 Commissioner Parties Personal hearing on 28-12-2006 RPAD undelivered through Assistant Commissioner pasted at factory gate on 12-12-06. 10. 30-12-2006 Supdt. Valsad Commissioner Report about panchanama 11. 28-12-2006 Subhakti Ashok Gupta MD of Subhtex Commissioner Request for Personal hearing in Fist week of Feb., 07 12. 15-1-2007 Copies of relied upon documents given to Yashpal Sharma authorized rep. of Subhakti 13. 25-1-2007 Subhakti Commissioner Inspection of documents 14. 2-2-2007 Commissioner Subhakti Inspection before Feb., 2007. 15. 16-3-2007 Commissioner All Parties Intimated to collect copies of all documents 16. 12-4-2007 Sh. Yashpal Sharma authorized by all parties received copies on 12-4-2007 17. 7-6-2007 Cross Examination of various persons requested. Not appeared for PH on 7-6-2007 18. 16-8-2007 Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also to be noted that the Production-incharge cum authorized signatory Shri G.D. Sharma, Shri Jayram Hegde, Accountant, Shri A.B. Purohit Commercial Manager, all of Subh Tex (I) Pvt. Ltd. have clearly admitted in their statements that Twisted Yarn cleared from Samarpan Textiles were received by them and the same were un-accounted. It has also been admitted that the same was received without duty paying documents. Further delivery challans relating to the same have been recovered. Unaccounted twisted yarn could not have been produced without unaccounted texturised yarn. Shri Natubhai Prajapati owner of the Transport Co. and the driver have admitted having transported the same. To sum up, the allegation against the M/s. Bee Gee Leasing and M/s. Samarpan is based on daily stock reports received and delivery challans corroborated by transporters. Since all the three units are located in the same compound, the question of supply of evidence in the form of transport vouchers does not arise as regards texturised yarn. Further, there is sufficient evidence in the form of delivery challans and evidence from the transporter to show that twisted yarn was sent from Samarpan Textiles to Subhakt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
