TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. On 5-9-97, the officers of Central Excise Preventive Section conducted a search of the assessee's premises and a shortage of 770 pieces of MMF (Processed) admeasuring 64,642.06 L. Mtrs., valued at Rs. 10,66,593.99 was detected. Also, an excess of 424 pieces of MMF(P) admeasuring 41,769 L. Mtrs. valued at Rs. 7,39,826/- was found which were placed under seizure. The officers also placed under seizure the relevant records for further investigation of the case. During the proceedings of Panchnama at the assessee's above mentioned premises, the partner of assessee viz. Shri Indravdan Amritlal Vakharia admitted the offence of illicit clearance of the processed fabrics and its substitution with fresh grey ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that they were getting grey fabrics processed from the noticee; that entire working of their respective firms were looked after by them; that they were shown Panchnama dt. 5-9-97 and its annexures drawn at the noticee's premises and they were shown the statement dt. 6-9-97 of Shri Indravdan Amritlal Vakharia, the partner of the noticee; that they agreed with the contents of the Panchnama and the statement of Shri Vakharia, partner of the noticee; that they admitted the receipt of processed fabrics without payment of Central Excise duty and without cover of Central Excise invoices for the quantity mentioned against their name in Annexures B and C to the said Panchanama; that they admitted the offence committed by them by receiving the proces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings, had himself admitted the offence and had also paid portion of the duty liability. The Apex Court judgment in the case of Surjeet Singh Chaabra v. UOI - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.), it was held that the cross examination of Panchnama witnesses was not required when there was confessional statement available and denial of opportunities does not violate the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that deposition of panchnama witnesses during cross examination that he was not present through out the search proceedings, was only an after thought and the very fact that the Panchnama witnesses had filed affidavit also supports this contention. He also assailed the Commissioner's view that partner was forced to give a confessional s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. valued Rs. 2,01,106/- is listed as not tallying with physical sock (alleged shortages). 11. Annexure D contains details of fabrics found in stock with no corresponding challan of grey fabrics. Under Annexure D are listed 38 lots with 770 takas of fabrics admeasuring 64642 L. Mtrs. which was seized. (alleged substituted fabrics). 12. Goods mentioned in Annexure D are fabrics found under process and alleged as substituted fabrics as replacement of processed fabrics removed without payment of duty. Goods mentioned in Annexure D were seized. However, the fate of these goods is not on record. These goods are outside the scope of these proceedings. 13. We find that during the cross examination, one of the panchnama ....