9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. 2. On accusation that the appellant companies in connivance with each other have clandestinely removed the processed fabric without payment of duty the appellant M/s. Kanchan Processors (P) Ltd. were ordered to pay duty to the tune of Rs. 86,01,121/- along with interest and penalty of equal amount, while Kanchan Wooltex Pvt. Ltd. h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been recovered from the premises of M/s. Kanchan Woltex Pvt. Ltd. It is further sought to be contended that the entire accusation of clandestine removal has been made essentially on account of difference found in the number of bales and pieces in comparison to statutory records maintained by the appellants in relation to the product manufactured by them and that in the circumstances, in spite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants in the absence of any explanation forthcoming from the appellants regarding goods which were found in the premises which do not tally with the statutory records. In the circumstances, according to the respondents mere refusal of cross examination cannot be said to have been denial of principle of natural justice. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellants drew our attention to the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same thing cannot be said regarding remaining part of the duty liability imposed upon the appellants. Statements of deponents do not appear to have been retracted. However, non-retraction of the statement in a case where the charges are disputed cannot be the sole ground to finalize the liability upon the assessee. There has to be some corroborative piece of evidence. Prima facie, we do not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
