9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and two other independent witnesses. Certain incriminating records were resumed from the said search. It was thereafter the statement of Shri Abhishek Nandwani was recorded on the date of search itself and thereafter on 31.07.2006 also. After recording the statement of Shri Brajesh Singh, Manager of the appellant and Shri H K Nandwani, proprietor of M/s. Deepak Exports and partner with the appellant that the show cause notice No. 2336 dated 7.10.2008 was served upon the appellant proposing the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 28,01,819/- along with interest and penalty. The imposition of penalty was also proposed upon Shri Abhishek Nandwani and Shri H K Nandwani, both the partners of the appellant and also of M/s. Rohit Trading Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he technical person who had no knowledge of sale and purchase. Accordingly his cross examination was utmost crucial as far as the defence of the appellant is concerned. The denial thereof is alleged to be unreasonable and unrational. He relied on the following case laws: 1. J & K Cigarettes Ltd. vs. CCE [2009 (242) ELT 189 (DEL)]; 2. Basudev Garg vs CC [2017 (48) STR 427 (DEL)]; 3. Ambika International vs Union of India [2018 (361) ELT 90 (P&H)]; 4. Flevel International vs. CCE [2016 (332) ELT 416 (DEL)]; and 5. Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd. CCE & CC, Raipur [2018 (362) ELT 961 (Chhattisgarh)] 4. It is submitted that the demand has been confirmed based upon the certain note books recovered by the Investigating team. However, the said no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 dated 12.9.2017, the original adjudicating authority had given the opportunity to cross examine Shri Brajesh Singh. The notice was served to the parties on three different occasions. It was served on available address but were returned by the postal authorities as undelivered. The appellant himself at the time of personal hearing on December 13 had acknowledged that said Shri Brajesh Singh was untraceable. The said Brajesh Singh was the appellants' ex-employee but got untraceable due to which the appellant were neither able to contact him nor were in position to provide his alternative address. The department also reflected its inability to trace said Brajesh Singh. It is under said circumstances that the Original Adjudicating Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand has been confirmed is that Shri Brajesh Singh, was preparing those notes at the instance of the appellant's competitor i.e. M/s. Kuber Group, I find no irrationality in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 12.3 of the Order under challenge while not accepting the said submission. There is no apparent denial for the entries on those private note books to not to have been accounted in the books of accounts of the appellants nor any other such document is produced by the appellants which may prove that the entries of those Notebooks do not pertain to the appellant's day today business. There is no retraction of the statements by Shri Abhishek Nandwani and Shri H K Nandwani. The statements recorded rather have clear admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
