9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri Shovendu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri K. Choudhury, Supdt., (A.R.) ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra These applications are filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1.01 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed on the applicant M/s. Saraf Metal Works and penalty of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs on Shri Om Prakash Saraf and penalty of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs on Smt. Sumitra Saraf , Proprietor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in confirming the demand. The Ld. Advocate submits that the Department has allowed cross-examination of four witnesses out of five. He submits that all these four witnesses, in their deposition, before the Ld. Adjudicating authority, did not confirm the earlier statements. He submits that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of the allegation of clandestine removal of alluminium wires from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that the demand against the applicant cannot be considered as case of no evidence but there are ample evidences against the applicant viz. the statements of late Shri Om Prakash Saraf and Shri Debabrata Das, employee of the Appellant. Even though the statements were claimed to have been retracted, but the retraction were not submitted during the course of investigation but annexed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acie, we find that these issues rest on evidences adduced by both sides. Also, at this stage we find that the earlier statements of the witnesses relied in the show cause notice, on cross-examination, did not conform to the earlier statements. However, also the statements of late Mr. Om Prakash Saraf and Debabrata Das are on record, whose retraction whether valid or otherwise needs to be scrutiniz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
