9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No.(1) and personal penalty of ₹ 5/- lakh imposed on the Applicant No.(2) namely, Shri Raman Agarwal, Authorised Signatory of the Applicant company. 2. It is the case of the Revenue that the Applicant company during the relevant time, had manufactured and supplied various hardware items to different Electricity Boards on the basis of purchase orders issued to them. The conditions stipulated in the Tender documents/purchase orders indicate that the Applicant company was required to manufacture and supply various goods mentioned in the said purchase orders. Also, the inspection and testing of the equipments were to be carried out at the premises of the Applicant company. During the course of investigation, the Applicant company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to record statements from all the suppliers canot be construed that the goods were not procured by them. He has further submitted that the impugned Order is issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the statement of Shri Raman Agarwal dated 13.03.2007 had not been supplied to them. Also he has submitted that the statements recorded by the Department were only of six persons out of the list of 33 suppliers submitted by them, of which two statements were contradictory and only four statements were against them. He has further submitted that they were not allowed to cross-examine these witnesses. Further, he has submitted that during the period from December, 2003 to June, 2006, whatever goods were supplied to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner, wherein he has dealt at length and advanced reasons as to why request for cross-examination of the persons could not be extended to the Applicant company. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The Applicant company had supplied finished products namely, electrical hardware items, to various Electricity Boards against Tenders/Purchase orders which are referred to in the impugned Order at page 4 reveal that they had been treated as manufacturers of various goods while awarding the tenders and placing the purchase orders on them. Further, the Applicant companys plea that they were not manufacturers of the goods in question, but they got it manufactured from outside job workers and also purchased from various trader ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces, we find that the Applicant company could not make out a prima facie case for total waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty. Also no financial hardship has been pleaded by the Applicant. Keeping in view the principle of law governing the exercise of discretion in disposing of the Applications filed under Section 35F, by the Honble Apex Court and High Courts and also the interest of revenue in mind, we direct the Applicant to deposit 25% of the amount of duty involved within a period of 8 weeks from today. On deposit of the said amount, the balance amount of duty and the entire amount of penalty imposed on the Applicant company and the personal penalty imposed on the second Applicant who is the Authorised Signatory of the Applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
