9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonal hearing dated 18.07.2014, they have not pressed for the same - there was no justification for grant of the cross-examination, as rightly observed by the lower authorities. Further, no request for cross-examination of any person was made during the personal hearing held a number of times. Even on the concluding date i.e 18.07.2014, the assessee-Appellants did not press for cross-examination of any person. This is merely an afterthought to buy time for delaying the proceedings. The assessee-Appellants have used the Kacchi Parchies for purchase of the unaccounted raw material and sale of the finished goods. When it is so, then there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is hereby upheld - appeal dismissed - d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the Department has seized the relied upon and un-relied upon documents . Only the relied upon documents were given and copies of the un-relied upon documents were not given. For the purpose, he relied upon a number of case laws relating to the principle of natural justice and submits that the matter may be remanded. He also submits that the cross-examination opportunity was also not provided. 5. On the other hand, learned DR justified the impugned order. 6. After hearing the learned counsel on the Preliminary Objection, we find that the lower authority in para 4.14 has observed that : 4.14 In the reply to the show cause notice filed during the course of personal hearing held on 16.09.2013 it was contended by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g expert. It is obvious that the request for cross-examination was frivolous and they did not require his cross-examination. So, the Preliminary Objection raised by the assessee-Appellants is rejected as opportunity of cross-examination was provided. ON MERIT : 8. The learned counsel, at the strength of written submissions, submits that the Department has made no investigation regarding purchase of raw material and onward transportation. There was also no investigation on the sale of the finished goods and excess onward transportation. At the strength of the written submissions, he submits that there was no extra power consumption. But on a specific query from the Bench - whether they were having any DG set?, he was unable to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout bills due to heavy competition in the market. To substantiate his justification that the raw material was also supplied without bills and hand written kacchi slips were also recovered, he drawn our attention to the findings given in para 4.10 - 4.14 of the impugned order. 10. We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 11. At the very outset, regarding the extended period, we agree with the findings given in para 2.19 of the impugned order. Hence, the plea of the assessee-appellants‟ is rejected. 12. From the record, it appears that the assessee-Appellants are running a small scale factory established in the year 2001 for the business of drawing aluminium wire from aluminium rod, which tantamo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 10.12.2009 where some entries were found. As per the document, total value of the aluminium wire removed to various buyers comes to ₹ 6,86,79,454/- @ ₹ 120/- per KG as per minimum rate mentioned by assessee-Appellants in the bills for the corresponding period. The proprietor‟s statement was recorded on 10.12.2009. As per the handwriting expert, the document no. 11 was written by the proprietor, Shri Subhash Kumra. 14. It appears that the Kacchi Parchies show the purchase of raw material both by the assessee-Appellants as well as by some other unit. The details of purchase of the raw material were available on Kacchi Parchies. Further mention of the word SCRAP‟ on the Kacchi Parchies shows that it was for the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
