9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the denial of clandestinely removed goods in cross-examination is of no avail to the appellant and such evidence is reliable for the purpose of adjudication as held by Member (Judicial). 2. The case of Revenue is not proved on the principle of preponderance of probability and accordingly the appeals are fit to be allowed as held by learned Member (Technical) Or In view of the documentary evidence brought on record in the course of investigation and duly supported by oral evidence of several persons and also supported by some of the key persons involved in the transaction, including in the course of cross-examination, the allegation of Revenue is established and accordingly the appeals are fit to be dismissed as held by Member (Judicial). The Registry is directed to put up the appeal record before the Hon ble President for nomination of learned third Member to consider the aforementioned questions and difference of opinion, for his opinion. - E/386-387/2012 - INTERIM ORDER No. 30117-30118/2020 - Dated:- 18-11-2020 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri C.V. Narasimham, Advocate for the Assessee. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise which on appeal was remanded to the original authority by CESTAT Bangalore by Final Order No.1397-1404/2009 and S.O. 1649-1656/2009 dt.24.11.2009. The specific direction given while remanding the matter was to provide to the appellants copies of all the relied upon documents and allow cross examination of various witnesses sought by the appellant and pass an order after following principles of natural justice. 4. In compliance of these directions, the impugned adjudication order (denovo) has been passed which is under challenge in these cases. During the denovo proceedings cross examination was conducted in respect of 12 of the 18 persons whose statements were relied upon. The list of these statements is as follows: S.No. Statement dt. Name, designation/status of the deponent 1. 19.08.2004 V. Durga Prasad, Agent of M/s SRMT Ltd, Vijayawada 2. 28.07.2005 S.S. Abrar, Proprietor, M/s Inter City Cargo Movers, Vijayawada ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Madurai 17. 29.08.2005 K. Nagaraj, Partner, M/s Nirma Paints Chemicals, Bellary 18. 10.07.2005 Sri Rajesh Mehta, Partner of M/s Oilchem India, Indore 5. Of the above, cross examination of S.No.1, 3, 8, 11, 15 18 could not be completed. S.No.11 above had died and therefore, could not be cross examined, while, S.No.15 has expressed her inability to come because of her severe lower back pain. Thus only 12 of the 18 witnesses could be cross examined. 6. As far as the relied upon documents are concerned, it is the case of the revenue that all relied upon documents were already supplied along with the original SCN. As relied upon documents were not legible, fresh copies of all relied upon documents, except five, have been supplied to the appellant. The five documents which could not be supplied were S.No.23, 42, 44, 46 48 of Annexure-C to the SCN which are as follows: 23. Made-up file No.1 with pages (odd-numbered) from 1 to 447. 42. CE Invoices of HRPL for 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003-04, in totally 29 books, submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). Section 9D. Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances. - (1) A statement made and signed by a person before any Central Excise Officer of a Gazette rank during the course of any inquiry or proceeding under this Act shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under this Act, the truth of the facts which it contains, - (a) when the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or whose presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable; or (b) when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the Court and the Court is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority, i.e. before Respondent No 2, would have to be eschewed from evidence, and it would not be permissible for Respondent No 2 to rely on the said evidence while adjudicating the matter. Neither, needless to say, would be open to the Revenue to rely on the said statements to support the case sought to be made out in the Show Cause Notice. (iv) Once examination-in-chief, of the makers of the statements, on whom the Revenue seeks to rely in adjudication proceedings, takes place, and a copy thereof is made available to the assessee, it would be open to the assessee to seek permission to cross-examine the persons who have made the said statements, should it choose to do so. In case any such request is made by the assessee, it would be incumbent on the adjudicating authority, i.e. on Respondent No2 to allow the said request, as it is trite and well-settled position in law that statements recorded behind the back of an assessee cannot be relied upon, in adjudication proceedings, without allowing the assessee an opportunity to test the said evidence by cross-examining the makers of the said statements. If at all authority is required for this proposition, reference may be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tements under section 14 of the Central Excise Act. The two authors who made the entries were Shri V. Srinivas Mahesh, Marketing Representative of the appellant and Shri V.B.S. Durga Prasad, Sales Executive of the appellant. Shri Srinivas Mahesh was not cross examined. Shri Durga Prasad reaffirmed his original statement during the cross examination. (e) Corroborative evidence taken in the form of statements by the buyers as follows: i. Statement dt.18.07.2005 of Shri T. Kalyana Sundaram, Managing Director of M/s Veena Paints, Madurai. ii. Statements dt.21.10.2003 and 31.12.2003 of Shri V. Veera Raghavan, Proprietor of M/s Vee Kay Jay Paints Chemicals, Chennai. iii. Statement dt.21.10.2003 of Shri N. Nagarajan, Proprietor, M/s Balaji Enterprises, Chennai. iv. Statement dt.21.10.2003 of Shri R. Radha Krishnan, Proprietor of M/s Star Paints, Chennai. v. Statement of Shri M. Mohan, working in M/s Sujatha Paints, Chennai given on 22.10.2003. vi. Statement of Shri R. Karthick (Alias R. Daniel Karthick), Proprietor of M/s Raja Colour Tech, Chennai recorded on 03.08.2004. vii. Statement dt.29.08.2005 of Shri K. Nagaraj, Partner of M/s Nirma Paints Chemic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority even during the denovo proceedings and hence their statements cannot be relied upon. As far as the remaining 12 are concerned, the alleged buyers of the goods, whose statements were relied upon, have negated their statements during the cross examination and affirmed that they only purchased resin from the assessee/appellant under the cover of proper documents and made payments accordingly. Thus, their statements do not support the contention of the department that goods were cleared in the name of M/s Kalyan Chemicals, M/s Prasad Chemicals etc., describing the goods as orthoxylene, xylene etc., while the actual goods were resins manufactured by the assessee/appellant clandestinely and sold to them. The department could not also establish that the goods were indeed manufactured by the appellant/assessee. The department also could not establish that the money has flown back to the assessee. With regard to the above 6 specific pieces of evidence on which the department s case is built up, he would argue as follows: i. The samples of the chemicals drawn from the seized barrels do not pertain to them as has been always maintained by them from date of seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have affirmed their statements during the cross examination. Learned counsel would submit that these statements, per se, would not be sufficient to assert that M/s Kalyan Chemicals and M/s Prasad Chemicals are fictitious firms created as front for assessee. He would submit that separate VAT registrations have been obtained for each of these companies and have been filing returns also. v. The statements of the buyers taken by the revenue as evidence are no longer relevant because of the buyers who have been cross examined have negated their statements made before the officers. vi. As far as the evidence in the forms of sale proceedings flowing back to the assessee by way of cash/DD are concerned, he would submit that these allegations are based on the statement of Shri V. Srinivas Mahesh who was not cross examined. 14. In view of the above, he would urge that there is no evidence, whatsoever, adduced by the revenue in the case and the entire case has been built on assumptions and presumptions. Consequently, the case needs to be dismissed and impugned order needs to be set aside and their appeal needs to be allowed with consequential relief. 15. Per contra, learned De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal statements must be relied upon. Therefore, it must be held that appellant has cleared goods clandestinely in the name of three dummy firms. 17. He would further submit that not only has the clearance of goods been established but the flow back of money has also been established by producing evidence of cash deposits and DDs being made in the favour of the assessee. In view of the above, he would submit that the case is fully established and the impugned order is correct and balanced and needs to be upheld and the appeals may be rejected. 18. We have considered arguments of both sides and perused the records. At the outset, we observe that the evidentiary value of any statement made before the Central Excise officer under section 14 of Central Excise Act is subject to fulfilment of procedure under section 9D of the Act. This is a statutory provision in the Act itself and has been interpreted as such by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd (supra). Therefore, the statement of six persons who could not be cross examined are not relevant for the present proceedings and only the statements of 12 persons who have been cross examined a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned, the alleged owners of M/s Kalyan Chemicals and M/s Prasad Chemicals have confirmed that they have set up dummy units at the behest of Shri Sama Rajasekhar, Managing Director of the assessee only to make paper entries. They have affirmed this position during the cross examination by the assessee s advocate. The assessee s advocate could not establish during the cross examination that their statements were false. 20. As far as the flow back of cash is concerned, we find that there is some evidence of the accounts being opened and cash being deposited and counterfoils of DDs present but we find it not sufficient to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the money has flown back to the assessee. 21. To sum up, in this factual matrix, we find as follows: a) The fact that M/s Kalyan Chemicals and M/s Prasad Chemicals were dummy firms has been established by the revenue and it has not been countered effectively by the assessee. b) The evidence regarding transportation of goods alleged to be clandestinely manufactured and removed and their sale to the buyers have not been established as both the transporters and the buyers have all negated their stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents were seized and the concerned persons admitted to the removal of excisable goods clandestinely by the appellant, which is morefully discussed in the following paragraphs. 25. The Managing Director - Shri S. Rajsekhar of M/s Harika on being confronted with the documents and statements of other connected person(s), admitted clandestine removal in his statement recorded on 22.10.2003 and also on other dates. He categorically admitted that he was clearing part of his finished goods in the name of M/s Kalyan Chemicals, a trading concern the proprietor of which was Shri N. Kalyan Chakraworty (employee). The plot where the trading premises of M/s Kalyan Chemicals was situated is owned by Managing Director Shri S. Rajsekhar. Shri N. Kalyan Chakraworty was working as a Typist in M/s Harika Resins who admitted in his statements that M/s Kalyan Chemicals has been set up at the behest of Shri S. Rajsekhar. Further, he categorically admitted that his duty included typing, correspondence, maintaining various records and other things in HRPL. He also looked after the work of M/s Priya Chemicals, the other firm owned by Mrs. M. Varalaxmi w/o Shri S. Rajsekhar, the Managing D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the test being done of the samples drawn, the goods were found to be resin and not orthozylene . M/s Kalyan Chemicals has not purchased resin nor have the manufacturing facility to manufacture resin. Thus, evidently the ten barrels of resin were despatched clandestinely by M/s HRPL, in the name of M/s Kalyan Chemicals misdeclared as orthozylene to evade payment of duty. 28. Similarly, appellant has created another proprietorship concern in the name of style of M/s Prasad Chemicals, Prop. Shri C.S. Durga Prasad, an employee Accountant, working for HRPL and M/s Priya Chemicals. Under similar modus operandi finished goods of M/s HRPL has been cleared through M/s Prasad Chemicals. 29. Further, from the documents seized, simultaneous despatch on the same date was found to the same buyer, wherein some part of despatch was accounted as despatch by M/s HRPL and some despatch was shown in the name of either M/s Kalyan Chemicals or M/s Prasad Chemicals under misdeclaration. Even the LR nos. was found to be consecutive. Further, the transporters have also affirmed that they were lifting the goods from the premises of M/s HRPL, partly consigned by M/s HRPL and partly (purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r damage of goods suffered during transit. As per the letter, the consignments were booked in the name of M/s Kalyan Chemicals vide LR Nos. 1218202 and 1218203 both dated 04.09.2003 and consigned to parties at Chennai were stated to be paints/ resin and the value of damaged or leaked quantity was required to be settled @ ₹ 49/- per kg. Further, as evident from M/s SRMT booking register and also from the copy of LR, these two consignments were originally booked by describing the goods as orthozylene with value at ₹ 10/- per kg. Thus, this fact also corroborates the clandestine despatch of resin (finished goods) by M/s HRPL by resorting to misdeclaration and under the invoice of M/s Kalyan Chemicals. 32. Similar dispatches in the name of M/s Kalyan Chemicals was also found through another transporter Inter cities Cargo Movers, Vijayawada (ICCM in short). From the consignment notes found and recovered from the premises of ICCM, it was found that these bookings under the name of M/s Kalyan Chemicals were made from May, 2003 onwards while in the earlier period certain booking of M/s HRPL were available. Evidently in the consignment note No. 8114 dated 01.05.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ximately ₹ 10/- per kg., the particulars denoted at Sl. No. (d) and (f) as mentioned above pertain to the actual description of the goods as resin of different variety as indicated in short or code form, as RML, RMD, etc. having value/ price in the range of ₹ 50 per kg. The following representative examples found in the Diary would illustrate the above deductions:- (a) In page of the date of 24th March, 2003 two handwritten entries read as follows: (i) Raja Paints (C), 5 RMD 951413 5- RMD 5 x 190 @ 49 PAID (ii) Bhagwan Paints (C), 951414 5 RMD 5 x 190 @ 49 PAID The above date (24 march, 2003), party-names and the numbers 951413 and 951414 were correlatable to the date, consignee names and LR Numbers in the SRMT s booking Registers, pertaining to the consignments booked under the name Kalyan Chemicals , consisting of 5 barrels in each consignment, which also tallied with the quantity indicted in the entry as above. The indication C was apparently a reference to Chennai , where the party was located as also used in other instances. However, for booking the transport, the goods were declared as Orthoxylene with the price at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aries Dolphin , Vajawat ledgers were recovered vide Mahazar Sl. No. 2 and 3 maintained as pocket ledger containing partywise account for the period January, 2003 onwards. Such parties accounts were maintained containing name or short name of the party such as Master for Master Paints, Chennai , Archana for Archana Colour coatings, Chennai etc.. Each such account contained datewise particulars and amounts posted accordingly as debit and credit and also the balance after each transaction/ entry. The particulars of debit included description of the goods i.e. resin RML/RMD /RDCO/ Soya etc. followed by a number in brackets such as (2) or (5) etc. The particulars of credit amount were indicated as by chq or cash also with cheque /DD number. On verification the date and particulars pertaining to the debit in the party s account, matched with the date, description and the party name as recorded in the Executive Diary-2003. While the number in bracket match with the quantity in terms of number of barrels, and these were further corelatable to the particulars of the consignment transported through SRMT or ICCM. Most of the entries in the private ledger /diary were corel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alyan, as proprietor of Kalyan Chemicals . The said name and signature were identical to those appearing in a letter on the letterhead of HRPL containing C-Form reminder dated 30.07.2003, signed by M. Kalyan as Manager, HRPL, available at page 327 of the same file. (b) Pages 279 to 283, 319, 321, 323, 351, 365 411 of the said file Sl. No. 5 were handwritten statements (including faxcopies and originals at page 351, 411) showing the details of Resin consignments supplied during June and July, 2003 to various parties. The particulars of each consignment in these statements include date, party-name, LR number, transport name, the actual description/ coded name of the Resin, quantity in no. of barrels, price per kg. etc. On verification, the particulars of consignments in these statements were found to be corelatable to those booked under the name of Kalyan Chemicals, wherever transported through SRMT and ICCM, except the description of goods (indicated as Xylene/ Orthoxylene, etc. in SRMT s LRs) and the values. (c) Page 257 of the above said file Sl. No. 5 was a sm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slips, etc. The aforementioned details and record were identified and explained by Shri V. B. Durga Prasad in his statement under Section 14 of the Act. 39. One Shri V. Srinivas Mahesh was the Marketing representative of the HRPL at Chennai from 1997 till about June, 2003. In the course of search at his residence, certain privately maintained account notebooks and other documents were found. These were similar to those recovered from the room of Shri V. B. Durga Prasad and discussed hereinabove relating to the period 2000-2001 to 20022003. In the pocket / small ledger notebooks recovered vide Mahazar Sl. No. 4 and 5, the accounts were maintained in the name / short name such as Master for Master Paints , Chennai, Archana for Archana Colour Coatings , Chennai etc. These accounts contained details of debit and credit and the balance amount after each transaction/ entry in similar fashion, as in the small diary recovered from Shri V. B. Durga Prasad. On finding the correlation between the entries in these private ledgers and the consignment booked under the name of M/s Kalyan Chemicals, M/s Prasad Chemical and M/s Priya Chemical etc. has been tabulated in Annexure D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Prasad, Shri T. Sharma, Saroj Rani etc., Copy of counterfoil at page 44 showing demand draft for ₹ 46,859/- was obtained on 17.01.2001 out of ₹ 47,090/- received from Sujatha Paints. The entry in the ledger book vide Mahazar Sl. No. 5 maintained by Shri V. S. Mahesh, on verification was found to be to the date, party name and amount as appearing on the bank deposit / demand draft application counterfoil. Similarly, folio No. 69 of ledger vide Mahazar Sl. No. 5 seized from V.S. Mahesh relates to Surya Chemicals containing details of receipt of cash amounting to ₹ 14,785/- on 04.04.2002. On comparing the same bill entry and report of Shri V.S. Mahesh dated 04.04.2002 available at sheet No. 389 and 391 of made up file seized from the room of Shri V. Durga Prasad, it is evident that ₹ 14,790/- was collected in cash by Shri V.S. Mahesh from Surya Chemicals on 04.04.2002. Thus, HRPL was receiving the flowback i.e. cash/ cheque for clandestine removal through Shri V.S. Mahesh, cheque received were encashed in the personal account of Shri V.S. Mahesh and further demand draft were obtained against cash or transfer from the account as narrated hereinabove. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mahesh also identified the documents recovered from the room of Shri V. Durga Prasad which were in his handwriting, such as collection daily report, partywise account, amount etc. 44. The department also obtained copy of account statement from Canara Bank, Chennai relating to saving account Nos. 2273, 1834 and 2034 opened and operated by Shri V. S. Mahesh. Account statement of account No. 2273 showed various deposits of relatively larger amount during the period 2001-02, also from which amounts were drawn in cash or demand draft obtained. These deposits correlated to the sale proceeds collected from the parties as per the entries in privately maintained ledger by Mahesh. The total amounts thus deposited in the bank account of Shri V. Mahesh amounted to ₹ 39.04 lakhs. The said practice of collecting the flow back or amount of clandestinely removed goods is also evident from the bank account in Global Trust Bank in the names of employees of HRPL, namely Shri V. B. Durga Prasad, C.S. Durga Prasad and M. Kalyan Chakraworty. The said practice is evident from the following documents found and recovered. Page 21 of the made-up file No. 77/1, recovered from the factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e residential premises. Apart from this, amounts pertaining to deposits/ remittances made at other places such as Bangalore, Trichy, Madurai, Nagapattinam etc. and also those at Chennai - Kilpauk (in the period not covered in the above records), were also found to be credited into the above accounts. The withdrawals/ debits in these accounts were broadly in the form of (i) cash/ ATM withdrawals, (ii) Demand drafts obtained payable at Mumbai, Hyderabad etc., and (iii) cheques issued in the names of different parties. 46. Shri S. Rajsekhar, the Managing Director of M/s HRPL in his statement dated 22.10.2003 inter alia admitted that the bills of M/s Kalyan Chemicals were used for covering the transport of resin clandestinely cleared by M/s HRPL. He also submitted certain records of M/s Kalyan Chemicals which included sale - bill books and other files containing purchase documents, vouchers, sales tax return, etc. On scrutiny of the records, it was observed that the sales reflected in the sale bill of M/s Kalyan Chemicals were mostly for castor oil cleared to various parties located in and around Vijayawada within the State. Thus, none of the sale/ consignment booked for trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding the large amounts regularly transacted in the two bank accounts with Global Trust Bank, Vijayawada, he stated that the said two accounts were opened at the instruction of Shri S. Rajsekhar and he had nothing to do with the amount deposited in or paid from the said account(s). He had signed on the account opening form and other form / enclosures and given his certificates, etc. He had also signed the cheques, withdrawal/ deposit slips as and when asked by Shri S. Rajsekhar. That the cheque books and passbooks to these accounts were kept by Shri S. Rajsekhar. He further identified various bills of M/s Kalyan Chemicals with the corresponding slips, forming part of the seized records as written and prepared by him on the instructions of Shri S. Rajsekhar. He further stated that as instructed by Shri S. Rajsekhar, he used to prepare the bills of M/s Kalyan Chemicals and these were used to cover the transport of resin manufactured by M/s HRPL to various customers showing the goods as orthozylene/ MTO/ Castor oil etc. The copy of the LR alongwith the slip showing the actual description, quantity and rate (prepared by him mostly), were sent to the party or M/s HRPL s representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HRPL and explained the contents therein. He also explained the contents as queried in respect of various pages in the made up File No. 5 including the details of actual description and value of resin supplied from M/s HRPL to various customers and the collections/ realisation against such supplies. He also admitted that bank account No. 29011 -01075 with Global Trust Bank, Vijayawada in his name was opened at the instance of Shri S. Rajsekhar who operated the said account till its closure in May, 2003. The said account was used to deposit the unaccounted money realised out of the unaccounted / clandestinely sale of resin, under the bills of M/s Kalyan Chemicals. He has no personal interest in the transactions in the said account as the same was operated as per the direction of Shri S. Rajsekhar. He had signed blank cheque books and handed over the same to Shri S. Rajsekhar. He further identified and explained the documents at pages 3 and 7 in the made up File No. 6 showing details of payment(s) deposited in the account of M/s HRPL and Shri M. Kalyan Chakraworty denoted in code as HK and KC respectively and such entries were written by him. 50. Shri C. S. Durga Prasad, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s HRPL. In his statement recorded under Section 14, Shri K. Prabhuraj, Prop. M/s Sandhya Trading Co., on perusing the bank documents, confirmed that Shri K. Rajeshwar Rao and Shri K. Rajnikant were his two sons and the amount credited in their account in Global Trust Bank were received from M/s HRPL towards payment of supplies of castor oil, soya oil and cotton oil etc. which were arranged by him. He also stated that as per request of Shri S. Rajsekhar the supplies were arranged by him on commission, without any bills. He also confirmed that the payment for such clandestine supplies to M/s HRPL were received by him in the bank account of his sons, as aforementioned. He further stated that the documents of the transactions with M/s HRPL were not available with him as he has periodically destroyed on completion of the transaction. 53. Further, several buyers of the clandestinely removed goods by M/s HRPL, like M/s Balaji Enterprises, Chennai through its Prop. N. Natarajan have admitted to received resin from M/s HRPL under the invoices of M/s Prasad Chemicals/ M/s Priya Chemicals etc. He further stated that demand drafts were taken in the name of the firm as per the invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is lack of sufficient evidence, as evidence being the statement of some of the persons given in the course of investigation is not reliable, as such persons have not stood by their earlier statement at the time of cross examination or not appeared for crossexamination, as held by learned Member (Technical) Or The statements of the persons recorded at the time of investigation is based or co-relatable with documentary evidence. Such documentary evidence having not been denied, the denial of clandestinely removed goods in cross-examination is of no avail to the appellant and such evidence is reliable for the purpose of adjudication as held by Member (Judicial). 2. The case of Revenue is not proved on the principle of preponderance of probability and accordingly the appeals are fit to be allowed as held by learned Member (Technical) Or In view of the documentary evidence brought on record in the course of investigation and duly supported by oral evidence of several persons and also supported by some of the key persons involved in the transaction, including in the course of cross-examination, the allegation of Revenue is established and accordingly the appeals are fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
