9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay Kumar, Accountant were present. They informed the Central Excise officers that they were authorised signatories of M/s. RKMB in the central excise matters. They produced documents/records asked for by the visiting officers. The Officers resumed some of them. Statements of S/Shri Hari Mohan Maheshwari and Jay Kumar were recorded. In his statement, Shri Hari Mohan Maheshwari stated that he had been working in M/s. RKMB for about 12 years and was authorised to sign the documents pertaining to central excise affairs. He stated that he used to inspect the covering receipts of raw materials and clearance of finished goods; that pre-authentication of the invoice book was done by the directors but sometime by him; that each invoice book was having 50 sets of invoices; that he perused the invoice book which did not bear serial number on any of the invoice; that duplicate copies of first 4 sets of invoice contained in the said invoice book bore his signature and the rest did not; that he signed the duplicate copies of four sets of invoice book under the instruction from the directors; that he saw six digit and thirteen digit numbering machines recovered from their factory by the visiting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the person preparing the clearance documents to sign on their behalf for the sake of their convenience; that he was complying with the orders of his directors; that on a specific query, he stated that he used to be given the GP-1s to be issued in three copies; that such GP-1 already bore the fake signatures and stamp of the Inspector; that he used to put forged signatures of Ashok Kumar. 5.Central Excise Officers searched business premises of M/s. SPH and found some incriminating documents which were taken into possession. Statement of Shri Promod Kumar Jain, Partner of M/s. SPH was recorded. He stated that M/s. SPH was carrying on trading activities of paper; that they were purchasing paper from M/s. RKMB on outright purchase basis as well as on purchase for sales; that the goods were received by them under invoices accompanied by bills. 6.Statement of Shri Chaman Lal, Partner of M/s. SPH was also recorded who corroborated the statement of Shri Promod Kumar. 7.Shri Ashok Kumar, Director of M/s. RKMB, in his statement dt. 27-6-96 stated that he was 'slumbering director'; that he was not looking after the work of the factory; that he was authorised to sign the documents rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ottom portion of the documents has been torn off to destroy the evidence of writer. 10.The appellants contended that the retained original GP-1s/ invoices have no force as evidence; that Section 36A prohibits the Department from using these documents against the appellants as the burden of proving them as such lies on the person or persons from whom they were recovered; that since the Department has possessed and retained them, the entire burden is cast on it; that repeated requests were made for producing their duplicate and triplicate copies which were not furnished. 11.It was submitted that the statements of various persons were recorded in predetermined manner under coercion; that these statements have been retracted; that the affidavits have been sworn in; that the statements were recorded under duress; that this coercion under which statements were recorded has supported by the fact that the Department did not have duplicate or triplicate copies of the documents and did not disclose that they were not in a position to obtain them. It was contended that the partners of M/s. SPH when questioned about the consignment receipt they did not confirm their receipt nor their recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 13.Ld. Advocate submits that the Department has unilaterally determined the norms of production without giving the appellants any opportunity to defend their case. He submits that the production of the appellants company is determined on the parameters and the production of M/s. Meenu Paper Mills. He submits that Meenu Paper Mills is closed concern in the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 whereas the production of the appellants company is for 5 years. He, submits that the emphasis is on yield of the appellants company which has been found to be 63.7% as against 68% of M/s. Meenu Paper Mills. He submits that in view of the fact that the yield of mills depend on many factors; that no evidence has been placed on record as to which factors were taken into consideration to determine the yield and to calculate the production; that no opportunity was given to the appellants to disprove their contention. He, therefore submits that looking to the above facts and the circumstances of the case, the appeals may be allowed. 14.Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 15.Heard the rival submissions. We have considered the evidence on records and the statements o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
