9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of 5 manufacturing units namely : (i) Amtek Auto Ltd.-I, Sohna (AAL-I) (ii) Amtek Auto Ltd.-II, Gurgaon (AAL-II) (iii) Bond Amtek Ltd., Gurgaon (BAL) (iv) Amtek India Ltd., Gurgaon (AIL) (v) Amtek Auto Ltd.-III, Gurgaon (AAL-III) and were engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle Parts falling under Chapters 84, 87, 73 and 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were availing Modvat credit facility in respect of duty paid on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "Rules"); that all the above five units including head office situated at J 206, Saket, New Delhi were raided by the Central Excise Officers of M.T. Division Branch, Delhi-III, Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12-1998; that only after lapse of 3 months when the department had failed to make out any case against the appellants as a result of last publicised rates, concerned Central Excise Officers conspired and transplanted the false case of Modvated capital goods in all the 4 units of appellants to justify their action on unlawful raid; that the Central Excise Officers extorted the submission of Shri Vinod Uppal, Manager (Accounts) on 11-3-1994 in confirmation of the shortage of Modvated capital goods in the 4 units of the appellants detected by them by visiting; that committal statement of Shri Uppal is not coroborated by any evidence and is, therefore, far away from the real facts and that the false statement of Shri Uppal is established by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply; that without appreciating submission made by the appellants in their letter dated 23-8-2001, another date of hearing was given on 27/28-9-2001; appellants vide letter dated 28th September, 2001 again requested for inspection/supply of the relied upon record/document before the said date of hearing; despite the subsequent repeated requests, the respondent verbally rejected the request for supply/inspection of the relied upon documents; accordingly appellants appeared before him on 1-10-2001 and submitted their written submission individually; that they produced documentary evidence in support of the fact that the machines in question are installed in their respective unit; the respondent unilaterally and arbitrarily decided the case vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on false investigation report of the Central Excise Officers that Commissioner has merely gone by the statement of Shri Vinod Uppal without verification of his correctness with reference to relevant records and documents; that statement of Shri Vinod Uppal recorded on 11-3-1999 regarding verification of the capital goods in question with reference to RG 23C (Pts. I and II) is meaningless when he was not participant to the physical verification done on 2-2-1999, 4-2-1999, 5-2-1999 and 6-2-1999 in respective factory; that from the statement of Shri Vinod Uppal it is not clear whether list of capital goods drawn by the investigating officer was of those capital goods which were installed in the factory or of those not installed in the factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Shri Uppal was not a technocrat expert in the field so as to verify the listed items shown to him which were available in the factory; that the statement recorded would have been of some value if the same was from the works manager. 3. That in support of his contention learned Advocate relied on the following decisions : (1) Deepak Tandon reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1079 to the effect that charge of clandestine removal is required to be proved by production of positive and tangible evidence. (2) Grauer Weil India Ltd. reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 618 to the effect that clandestine removal not established in absence of any positive evidence. Learned Advocate very categorically submitted that goods in question were clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That in his rejoinder the learned Advocate submitted that goods in question were installed in respective units; that show cause notice at pages 34, 41, 50 do not relate to the present case and, therefore, provisions under Rule 57(2) pointed out by the learned JDR are not attracted in the present case as the goods were not removed; that the statement of the authorised officer of the company relied on by the Deptt. to show cause as on pages 34, 41a and 50 are not relevant for the present case and, therefore, the contention of the learned JDR with regard to their retraction does not arise; that he finally submitted that the appeals filed by the appellants may be allowed. After hearing rival submissions, perusal of the records and the case la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
