9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rying the same number but different dates and different values, but accounting only one of the two, which fact was found during the search operation and also resulted in seizure of invoices; that the above discrepancy did result in causing the difference between the physical production quantity vis- -vis the stock register RG-1 which fact also was un-earthed during search and brought on record. Therefore, even if the statement of some of the employees, Managing Director and drivers are to be discarded, still the factual position as to the assessee maintaining duplicate/double invoices of the same number, etc., found and seized, remains un-shaken/unrebutted. The clandestine removal will have to sustain only in respect of duplicate invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05; that there was difference between the physical production quantity vis- -vis RG-1 stock register to the extent of 52.32 MTs of MS ingots which was cleared without payment of duty; that 8.240 MTs of MS ingots was cleared without payment of duty vide invoice No. 665 (used for 2nd time); that the Revenue had recorded statements of drivers Shri D. Fayez and Shri P. Venkatesh who also confirmed the transportation of MS ingots from the factory to the go-down of M/s. Pashun Impex at Whitefield, Bangalore; that even the Managing Director Shri Parveez Rahim Khan explained the modus operandi of the clandestine removal, etc., and accordingly proposed to demand duly along with interest, as also proposing penalty on M/s. A.R. Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to conclude that there was clandestine activity. She further pleaded that the assessee nowhere sought for cross-examination of any of the persons and in any case, a statement of the Managing Director itself was sufficient to bring home the guilt of clandestine removal since having admitted, the MD did not even retract the same anytime thereafter. 3. Per contra, Ld. Advocate supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs. UOI - 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) to buttress his arguments. 4. It is undoubtedly the settled position of law that no uncorroborated statement of a person could be used agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
