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

2016 (8) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bench for non-compliance with direction of pre-deposit vide order dtd 29.9.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dtd 20.7.2007 directed to pre-deposit of balance amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- within eight weeks. The appellant deposited the said amount within the stipulated time, hence, their appeal was restored by this Tribunal vide its order dtd 20.10.2015. The appeal was thereafter fixed for hearing on 16.11.2015 but adjourned to 15.12.2015 at the request of the appellant. On 15.12.2015, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is his contention that the order was passed without hearing the appellant hence, they may be provided a chance to pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hence, the present appeal. 3. The Ld Advocate for the appellant has submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellant had imported a total quantity of 76,637.87 mtrs of Velour Pile Fabrics against the aforesaid Bills of Entry and received the same in their factory. The relevant records seized from the premises of the appellant indicate the fact of receipt of the said goods in the factory. It is his contention that by utilizing the fabrics imported, they have manufactured Readymade Garments totalling 11,500 nos. which was recorded in the finished product register retrieved from their factory. He has vehemently argued that it is only on the basis of statements of the Director recorded on 20.10.2000, the demand of duty cannot be confirm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a and submitted that after scrutiny of the registers maintained by the Company, and later seized by the officers, the officers alongwith Shri Agarwal visited the 2nd floor of the factory premises, where finished goods godown was situated; they verified the balance of finished goods viz., Dyed Fabrics, Printed Fabrics and Readymade Garments and tallied with the register maintained at the 1st floor of the factor premises. Also, the officers had taken the physical verification of the stock of the raw material viz., Velour Pile Fabrics which were imported against Bills of Entry No 84 & 85/ 2000-01 dtd 11.10.2000 and 13.10.2000 respectively. Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Director of the Company, informed before the panchas that both the consignments were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... furnished in August 2002 and hence, it could not be taken into cognizance while the entire statement was written by Shri Agarwal in his own hand witting. Further, the Ld. AR in support of his argument that the explanation/retraction furnished by the appellant in August 2002 cannot be acceptable, referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs Union of India- 1997(89)ELT.646 (SC) and Vinod Solanki vs Union of India  2009(233)ELT.157(SC). Further, he has submitted that even though the case was detected on 20.10.2000 and the Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 9.1.2002, it cannot be considered barred by limitation, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sold to Iqbalbhai, and the remaining quantity available in the factory cannot be accepted being not corroborated/supported by any material particulars/evidences. The case laws cited by the appellant are, therefore, not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We are of the opinion that the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) was right in rejecting the belated unsubstantiated explanation of the appellant submitted through the said affidavit. It is a cardinal principle of evidence that the facts admitted need not be proved. In the present case, the Director of the appellant, responding to the investigation of the DGCEI officers about the imported raw material, not only accepted the clearance of the imported fabrics without payment .....

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