9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (T) None, for the Appellant. Shri D.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)}.- M/s. Laxmi Tex Chem is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter headings 27,34, 38, 39 of CTA, 1985. After preventive checks and verification of the documents a case of suppressed production and illicit clearance by the first appellant to remain within exemption limit available for small scale unit was made out and a show cause notice was issued which culminated in the order confirming demand of Rs. 8,99,671/- with equal amount of penalty and interest and also imposition of penalty on various other parties involved. The appellants are against the confirmation of demand of duty and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under pressure and therefore, they have retracted. Serial Nos. 6, 7, 8 of the show cause notice has also given similar statements. This was not considered by the Department. (v)Laxmi Chemicals is engaged in trading and they have nothing to do with Laxmi Tech Chem who is manufacturer. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the appellants and record our observation on various aspects. The appellants submit that principles of natural justice was not observed since the extension of time to file reply was not given. Cross-examination was not made available to them. We find that show cause notice was issued on 8-9-2003 and the appellants admittedly submitted letters on 6-10-2003, 22-10-2003 and 23-2-2004 requesting for additional tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enial of whatever has been stated or admitted by the various parties in the statements and denial of facts that have been brought out by the Revenue during the course of investigation and nothing more. Whether before Commissioner (Appeals) or before us, the adverse impact of non-extension of facility for cross-examination not having been provided has been explained. They have also stated that three traders had replied to the show cause notice and contended that confessional statement was obtained under threat and pressure and Rule 26 does not apply in their case as they did not deal with any excisable goods. We find that even though penalties were imposed on the traders who had issued bills/invoices without supplying goods, none of them has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from non-existent firms. The investigation conducted by the Revenue and the documentary evidences and the statements clearly show that to keep the production within exemption limit, Laxmi Tex chem supplied unaccounted goods to Laxmi Chemicals, who in turn, sold these goods under proper bills and invoices but to show supplies or purchases obtained only bills/invoices from three traders and a few more fictitious firms. No explanation has been offered at any stage by any of the appellants as to how/why purchases were made from the fictitious firms. It is to be noted that retractions have been made only after issue of show cause notice and at the time of reply to show cause notice, no evidence of threat or pressure have been shown. The Apex Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
