9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement on 19.2.2015. In the interregnum, the appellant assessee did not raise any plea with regard to the allegation of coercion and duress while recording the statement dated 14.9.2012. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal were right in rejecting the retracted statement dated 19.2.2015. The Tribunal considered the contentions raised by the appellant assessee and assigned reasons as to why the contentions advanced by the assessee do not merit consideration. Thus, the Tribunal passed a speaking order and by way of this appeal filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we cannot be called upon to reappreciate the evidence, which was considered and appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is justified in recording the findings against the appellant without giving an opportunity to cross examine the person, whose statement was relied upon against the appellant is correct in law ? And iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the movement of the goods, passing of consideration, which are contemporaneous records maintained and filed by the appellant by following mercantile system of accounting is correct in law? 4. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai I Commissionerate issued a show cause notice dated 13.5.2016 calling upon the appellant assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-I). Even before the Appellate Authority, more or less, identical submissions were made as done before the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellate Authority, after considering the facts of the case and the grounds raised, rejected the plea raised by the appellant assessee to refer to the retracted statement dated 19.2.2015 and after assigning other reasons, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by order dated 12.12.2017. 8. Challenging the said order dated 12.12.2017, the appellant assessee filed further appeal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce No.127 dated 30.9.2011. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that the appellant assessee had not established that the amounts received by them in their bank accounts from M/s.Priya Engineering pertained to the invoices detailed in annexure I to the said show cause notice. 12. The Appellate Authority also considered the factual matrix, reappreciated the documents, which were placed by the appellant assessee and confirmed the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. 13. The Tribunal considered the contentions raised by the appellant assessee and assigned reasons as to why the contentions advanced by the assessee do not merit consideration. Thus, we find the the Tribunal passed a speakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
