TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sultant who over stayed abroad. It is his submission that for the error committed by the Consultant, the applicants should not be put into hardship by dismissing the application for condonation of delay. 3. The Ld. SDR on the other hand submits that the delay of 51 days is not correctly explained for. It is his submission that the applicants should have made alternate arrangements for drafting of the appeal and the stay petitions. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. After perusal of the condonation of delay applications made by the applicant, we find that the applicant have given justifiable reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In our view the error committed by the Consultant should not be a reason for not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been imposed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order on a finding that the appellants herein had connived and colluded with one Mr. Rameshchandra Agarwal, facilitating evasion of Central Excise duty on the grey fabrics and claiming the CENVAT Credit and utilizing the same for payment of duty and further claiming rebate. 8. The Ld. Counsel submits that he is appearing only for the above mentioned appellants and the main appellant "M/s. Karnataka Ginning & Processing Factory" (KGPF in short) and the others associates are not represented by him. It is his submission that the entire issue started by issuance of Notification No. 24/2003-CE(NT) dated 25.03.2003 and Notification No. 25/2003-CE(NT) dated 30.04.2003 wherein the duty w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, it is only on premises and surmises and there is no direct evidence. 9. The learned SDR on the other hand would take us through para 122 and 123 of the show-cause notice and submit that the entire Modus Operandi was done by Mr. Rameshchandra Agarwal. It is his submission that the current appellant/applicant had given that consent to Mr. Rameshchandra Agarwal to organize the entire evasion of duty by availing CENVAT credit on the non-existent stock as on 31.3.2003. It is his submission that appellant's letter-heads and other papers wherein declarations made to the authorities, belonged to appellants, and there is no explanation as how it were utilized by Mr. Rameshchandra Agarwal and sought to be explained in a very cavalier manner. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as on 31.03.2003, on behalf of the said 10 merchant manufacturers in which Shri S. Hotwani and Shri H. Bulchandani were the Directors, alongwith the original specimen signatures of both the said persons tendered in their respective statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were forwarded to the office of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, (Ministry of Home Affairs) Government of India, CFI's Complex, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-500013, for conducting verification of their handwriting and also the signatures put on such application/declaration. The Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad vide its letter No. CH-259/2004/3994 dated 14.09.04 submitted in respec....