9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dehradun whereby he decided the show cause notice dated 08.05.2017 and confirmed a demand of Rs. 18,72,41,951/- upon the assessee and imposed an equal amount of penalty. 2. Appeal No. E/50056 of 2019 is filed by Shri Ajay Agarwal assailing the same order in so far as it relates to imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- upon him. 3. Appeal No. E/50057 of 2019 is filed by Shri Javed Rana, Ex-Director assailing the same order by which a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is imposed upon him. 4. All these appeals have been heard and are being disposed of together. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the officers of the Department received intelligence that the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stigation. Despite repeated letters and reminders he did not appear. Thereafter, on 25.05.2016 officers opened the sealed envelope in which the Pen drive was present under a Panchnama in the presence of two witnesses and a copy of the files in the Pen drive were printed in the computer of the department. Based on the information collected from the Pen drive and also various documents which were resumed during the search and investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants which culminated in the impugned order. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the procedure prescribed under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, which is in pari-materia to the provisions of section 65B Indian Evidence Act, was not observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be permitted to raise this issue at this stage. 11. We also find that the impugned order has confirmed a demand of Rs. 18,72,41,951/-. This covered some demands which were made on the basis of the documents which were resumed as well as some demands raised on the basis of evidence in the Pen drive. Since the amount covered in the Pen drive was larger, they have been reckoned to subsume the demands raised on the basis of other documents which were resumed. Since we have now found that as the mandatory requirement under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act was not followed in this case, the Pen drive cannot be taken as evidence, the Original Authority should be given an opportunity to examine the demands in respect of the other documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
