9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s used in the manufacture of said final products were G.P. Sheets/Coils, G.I. Sheets/Coils and C.R. Sheets/Coils. Appellants were procuring the said inputs from registered dealer M/s Ruby Steels, Ghaziabad. On 28.01.2015 simultaneously searches were conducted at factory premises of M/s Nidhi Auto, Residential premises of Shri Sanjay Agarwa and Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, partners of M/s Ruby Steels. At the said premises certain documents records, ledgers etc. were recovered. At factory premises of M/s Nidhi Auto Ledger Account in respect of M/s Ruby Steels were found and it revealed that the said ledger accounts were maintained in two parts. They were resumed as per Sl. No.69 and Sl. No.70 of Panchnama dated 28.01.2015. The ledger account at Sl. No. 69 was maintained for the period from 01.04.2011 to 27.01.2015 and the other ledger account entered at Sl. No.70 was maintained for the period from 01.04.2011 to 03.01.2015. Further, at the residential premises of Shri Sanjay Agarwal and Shri Sanjeev Agarwal a diary was recovered, which recorded certain entries for the period from 06.03.2014 to 27.01.2015 and the same reflected date-wise details of payment received through RTGS, Cheques by M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Partner of M/s Ruby Steels and Shri Sanjay Agarwal partner of M/s Ruby Steels. 3. All the noticees contested the said show cause notice. It was submitted before the Original Adjudicating Authority that in respect of all the goods entered in ledger accountant at Sl. No.69 and at Sl. No. 70 were actually received and payments were made through RTGS and Cheques and that there were 1860 invoices entered in ledger account at Sl. No.70. The allegations were based on diary maintained and found at the residence of Shri Sanjay Agarwal & Shri Sanjeev Agarwal and was maintained only for the period from 06.03.2014 to 27.01.2015 which is not a sufficient evidence to make allegations for 5 years. It was further contended that said diary did not have mention as to whether any commission or any monitory consideration was being retained by M/s Ruby Steels for issuing alleged fake invoices. It was further contended that the said diary has no connection with supply made by M/s Ruby Steels to M/s Nidhi Auto and the diary entries had no reference to any invoice number issued by M/s Ruby Steels to M/s Nidhi Auto and therefore, correlation or nexus between the diary and ledger acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02 on Shri Kuldeep Singh Parmar, Shri Kunj Bihari Thakur, M/s Ruby Steels and Shri Sanjeev Agarwal. Aggrieved by the above order, all the above stated appellants are before this Tribunal. 4. Shri Somesh Arora learned Advocate and Shri R.S. Yadav learned Advocate appeared on behalf of all the appellants. They made following submissions:- a) Reliance on diary seized from the residence of the partner of Ruby Steels is contrary to the provisions of law, since the author of the said diary has not been identified and his statement is not recorded and also that the diary was recorded for the period from 06.03.2014 to 27.01.2015 that is only for 11 months and the said evidence was relied upon for raising demand for the period of 5 years and therefore, entire demand is without any basis. b) Contrary to the claim of revenue, 13 entries in the diary are pertaining to ledger at Sl. No.69. c) The record maintained by Shri Arun Jain, transporter was only for 5 months and the said record was relied upon for raising the demand for 5 years and therefore, the demand is without any basis. d) Cross examination of evidences was not allowed and therefore reliance on the statements for confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for manufacture of finished products weighing 25781.880 MT and paid duty on the same. k) Therefore, entire show cause notice is presumptive and issued without evidence for making allegations and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable. l) Since the impugned order is not sustainable, the penalties imposed on other appellants are also not sustainable. 5. Heard Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the revenue. He has reiterated the findings by the Original Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. 6. Having considered the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of record, we note that the Original Adjudicating Authority has basically relied on few statements recorded and two ledgers maintained by the appellant M/s Nidhi Auto and one diary recovered from the residence of partner of M/s Ruby Steels and transport details for five months provided by Shri Arun Jain and he has accepted all the evidences relied upon for issue of show cause notice without examining the contentions of the appellants which were submitted before him before passing the impugned Order-in-Original. We note that it was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
