Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (7) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riginal No. 35/Addl. Commr./2008 Dated 31.03.2008 upheld by the first appellate authority. Under the Order-in-Original Dated 31.03.2008 a demand of Rs. 15,42,047/- was confirmed for clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods upon the main appellant M/s. Deora Wires N Machine Pvt. Ltd. alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty was also imposed upon the main appellant under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Penalties of Rs. 10,00,000/- each were imposed upon Shri Suresh Chandulal Shah, Director of the main appellant and Shri Sanjay V. Deora, Director of M/s. Sampat Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Penalties of Rs. 3,00,000/- each were also imposed upon Smt. Sneha S. Deora a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d goods. Learned Advocate also relied upon the following case laws on the issue to argue that clandestine removals cannot be held against the main appellant in the absence of any corroborative evidence in the form of excess raw-material purchases, transportation of the goods and recovery of any cash from the appellants:- (i) Emmtex Synthetics Ltd. Vs CCE, New Delhi [2003 (151) E.L.T. 170 (Tri.  Del.)] (ii) Resha Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore [2006 (202) E.L.T. 332 (Tri.  Bang.)] (iii) Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Vadodara [2012 (278) E.L.T. 362 (Tri. 0 Ahmd.)] (iv) Arch Pharmalabs Limited Vs CCE, HYD. [2005 (182) E.L.T. 413 (Tri.  Bang.)] (v) Nav Bharat Paper P. Ltd. Vs CCE, Ghaziabad [2004 (165) E.L.T. 564] (vi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the main appellant and Shri Suresh Chandulal Shah, Director of the main appellant. It is also observed from the arguments made by the appellants that the statements recorded were retracted subsequently by way failing affidavits within a few days from the date of recording of these statements. The statement of Shri Dilip B. Waghela was recorded on 16.06.2005 and the statement of Shri Suresh Chandulal Shah was recorded on 18.07.2006. The same was respectively retracted on 18.06.2005 and 19.07.2006. Letters Dated 19.08.2005 & 31.08.2005 written by M/s L & T and M/s Jyoti Engineers & Contractors were also available with the investigations on the date of retractions under which the said companies have intimated that they have not received the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Visnagar-Mahesana Road, District Mehsana. On the premises of Messrs. Saakeen Alloys Private Limited and Messrs. Sunrise Enterprises, Mahesana simultaneous searches were carried out wherein three note-books and one pen-drive were recovered containing details of illicit clearances made by the said M/s. Saakeen Alloys Private Limited. On 24th November, 2007, at the business premises of M/s. Kodiyar Transport Services, Mahesana search was carried out and various documents containing the invoices issued by M/s. Saakeen Alloys Private Limited were recovered. Statement of one Mr. Mohammed Altaf Alambhai Kapadia connected with Messrs. Saakeen Alloys Private Limited was recorded on 23rd November, 2007 which was, within a short time, retracted. State .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nfessional statements of the proprietor and of some of the persons connected with the manufacturing activities and such statements were retracted within no time of their recording. The Tribunal also noted the fact that the requisite opportunity of cross-examination was also not made available so as to bring to the fore the true picture and therefore, it concluded against the Revenue observing that not permitting the cross-examination of a person in-charge of records of M/s. Sunrise Enterprises and absence of other cogent and positive evidences, would not permit it to sustain the demand of Rs. 1.85 Crores raised in the Demand notice and confirmed by both the authorities below. 8. As could be noticed from the material on record that for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates