TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (6) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal vide this common order. 2. The Counsel's argument and the rejoinder from Revenue were both heard on 14-12-1998 when both sides were directed to file certain documents. Certain documents in the nature of correspondence between the assessee and the adjudicating officer were placed on record by Revenue. No documents were submitted by the applicants in spite of being reminded periodically including vide communication dated 4-2-1999. However, on 15-3-1999 a communication was received from Shri Kohli, ld. Counsel. A copy of the show cause notice was annexed thereto. The claim was made that the extracts supplied of the RDSO of the Indian Railways were for the period April, 1994 to August, 1996, whereas the period of demand was from Octob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice was issued to the applicants' company and its officers alleging evasion of duty to the extent of Rs. 3,44,60,268/- (Rupees three crores forty four lakhs sixty thousand two hundred and sixty eight only.) Allegations were made as to the liability to penalty upon the noticees. The noticees were directed to appear for personal hearing. Para 20 of the impugned order describes the events occurring thereafter : - "The case was fixed for personal hearing on 20-3-1998. Shri Prem Rajan Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pradeep Jain, Advocate representing the noticees appeared. He requested for a short adjournment on the ground that Shri Pradeep Jain was out of station. The request was acceded to as a special case and Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stified for adequate opportunity had already been given to the noticees to defend their case. Therefore, I take up the case for adjudication". 4. The Commissioner Central Excise, New Delhi then proceeded to examine the evidence disclosed in the show cause notice and the written arguments advanced by the assessees and the other noticees. He confirmed the demand. He also imposed the penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs only) on the assessee company and of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs each on S/Shri Sameer Iqbal, Sohail Iqbal and Mohammed Akhil. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs) each on S/Shri R.K. Nayyar and Dinesh Bhargav. He confiscated the plant, building etc. but allowed their redemption on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arefully considered the various arguments made before us and have seen the documents including those later placed on record by the Revenue and Shri Kohli. 8. On 4-12-1997 the assessees replied to the show cause notice dated 4-11-1997. They claimed that the documents supplied with the show cause notice were incomplete. Doubts were expressed about the validity of the searches. The allegations of clearance without payment of duty were denied. In a later communication dated 6-5-1998, the various submission made in regard to the similar case against M/s. Continental Industries were adopted. The Commissioner in paragraph 19 of the impugned order has made the following observation :- "19. The documents requested for by the defence were supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the person who was instrumental in the scheme and the other noticees were assisting Mr. Sohail Iqbal in the clandestine removal of the goods. 12. The existence of the undisclosed bank account is also a strong corroborative evidence against the applicants. 13. We find that the Commissioner has specifically referred in paragraph 23 of his order as to the voluntary nature of the statements and the fact that no statement was ever retracted. 14. We further find that the assessees had voluntarily paid the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) towards the duty confirmed. In reply to a specific query ld. Counsel claimed that this should not be taken as admission on their part but that it was only to maintain good relat....