9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.K. Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Nitin Anand, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed by this common order. 2.We have heard Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Nitin Anand, learned DR for the respondent. 3. The present appeals arise from the order dated 20-12-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi. By the impugned order, the appeals filed by the appellants against the order of the original authority have been dismissed. The Additional Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also recorded of Shri Raj Kumar, Partner of the firm on 1-2-01. 6.The proceeding was contested by the appellants without success as the adjudicating authority under order dated 5-3-04 demanded duty and imposed the penalty as stated above. The appeal carried against the same did not yield fruitful results to the appellants. Hence the present appeals. 7. Only issue which arose for consideration in the matter before the lower authorities as well as, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the appellants had suppressed production of certain quantity of the final product manufactured by the appellants in order to remove the same clandestinely by showing excess consumption of PU Foam. 8. Both the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r I state that due to fire in August, 1999 in my factory PU Foam and Fabric were gutted; the information of which was not given by me to any Department. Apart from this in April - September, 2000, I have sold approximately 3 tons of PU Foam to Shri Kasturi Lal whose address is not known to me at present". 10.In fact the statement of Shri Raj Kumar was also recorded on the day of search conducted in the premises i.e. on 1-2-2001. In the said statement he had clearly stated that - "Thereafter they(officers) conducted search of the factory and asked to count final product and raw material. I have taken them to factory premises and help them to count the goods. They opened one Foam Roll on which production report SR # 44 dated 24-1-2001 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not limited to the quantity of final product as disclosed in the statutory records, that some of the buyers required such final product without being covered by any invoice or bill and that accordingly such product was being supplied to those buyers by the appellants after being manufactured in the factory of the appellants. Further, the appellants were not maintaining any details of such clearances. There was clear admission of these facts on 15-2-2001 and it was nowhere the case of the appellants that the statement was incorrectly recorded by the Department. In these circumstances, apart from the said admission, the Department having undertaken the experiment in relation to 20 kg. Roll to ascertain the final product which could be manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
