9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been imposed upon the other captioned two appellants - Shri A.K. Tantia, Joint Managing Director of M/s. BESCO Ltd. and Shri S.S. Chawdhry, Director of M/s. BESCO Ltd., under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.We have heard Shri Sarat Subramanyam, learned Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellants and Shri R.K. Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the Revenue. 3.The appellant company's factory was raided by the Officers of Director General, Anti-Evasion, Calcutta on 26-3-96. Apart from recovering and seizing incriminating documents, Cash of Rs. 6,31,120.00 was also seized. The appellants have two Electric Arc Furnaces and their major raw material is melting scrap generally known as bazar scrap. Based upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have manufactured the corresponding output. There is no evidence produced by the Revenue to show that the inputs have been procured from any other source. He submits that 100% of the supplies was being made by them to the Railways. As such, there cannot be any mala fides on their part. The entire case of the Revenue is based upon the statements of the dealers, which are not corroborated and as such cannot be taken into evidence. 6.Shri Subramanyam also assailed the Order on limitation. He submits that the entire documents were being presented before their jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities and were being defaced. There were also audits conducted in their factory and no discrepancies were, however, found. In these circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w take the plea that no corroborating evidence has been placed on record by the Revenue inasmuch as recourse to further investigation did not take place because of the clear admission on the part of the appellants. 8.In any case, submits the learned Advocate, the statements of the appellants' dealers have not been retracted and almost all of them have agreed that no material corresponding to the one described in the evidence was sent to M/s. BESCO and it was only the invoices which were made by them in favour of M/s. BESCO. He also submits that these statements corroborate each other and that is a valid piece of evidence. As regards the statement of Shri Surendra Kumar Sahal, Works Manager (Operations), which is to the effect that the scr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove that the inputs were not received by the appellants duly covered by the invoices of the dealers under which they were shown to have been received and the same might have been procured by them from other persons as bazar scrap on which no duty was paid. Similarly, the appellants cannot be heard to make any grievance about the fact that cross-examination of the dealers was not afforded when there was no such request from the appellants. It is true that the appellants could not have manufactured tubes without procuring the inputs. But this fact by itself, does not tilt the case in favour of the appellants inasmuch as the Revenue's case is not that the inputs were not procured at all by the appellants. But the case is that the inputs sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
