TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e during the financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02 were worth Rs.1,08,40,256/- and Rs.1,25,99,136/- respectively. With regard to their sales turnover for the year 1999-2000, the appellant explained that their actual sales during that financial year were only Rs.31,95,792/- well within the exemption limit of Rs.50 lakhs and that the rest of the goods valued at Rs.80,07,632/- had not been manufactured by them but had been purchased by them from M/s Jyoti Leather Works, Colonelganj, Kanpur and M/s MS Enterprises, Beconganj, Kanpur. With regard to their sales turnover during 2000-01, and 2001-02, no clarification was given during investigation though Shri Shamshad Ahmad, Proprietor of the appellant firm, had been summoned by the investigating officers several times for this purpose. 1.2 With regard to appellant's claim regarding purchase of the goods during 1999-2000 from M/s Jyoti Leather Works and M/s MS Enterprises, enquiries were conducted by sending summons to them at their addresses but the summons were returned by postal authorities with remarks that the said units do not exist on the said addresses. On enquiry with the trade tax office, the trade tax officer vide letter dated 30....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide Order-In-Original dated 28.02.02 by which the duty demand of Rs.5,50,303/- was confirmed under proviso section 11A(1) of the Act along with interest u/s 11AB and besides this while penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant firm under section 11A, penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed on Shri Shamshad Ahmad, Proprietor of the appellant firm under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. 1.6. The appellants filed appeals against both these orders before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order in appeal No.518-520/CE/Appl/03, dated 06.02.04 dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant firm except that the penalty of Rs.50,000/- on Shri Ahmad was set aside. Against this order of Commissioner(Appeals), these two appeals have been filed. 1.7. The appellant had also filed application for waiver from the requirement of duty demand, interest and penalty under section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal vide said order No.252-253/04/NB, dated 14.06.04 directed the appellant to deposit Rs.9 lakhs and report compliance on 24.08.04. Rs.9 lakh were to be deposited out of the amount whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicating authority and though this letter was acknowledged, request for adjournment was totally ignored without any justification and matter was decided ex-parte, that Commissioner(Appeals) has also not considered their submissions, that the order had been passed by the original adjudicating authority without giving reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and without considering the submissions made in the reply to the Show Cause Notice and that in view of this, the impugned order in respect of the appeal against Order-In-Original dated 28.10.02 is not sustainable. 3.1. As regards, Appeal No.1803/04, Shri Awasthi pleaded that the bulk of goods supplied to the Govt. departments had been purchased from M/s Jyoti Leather Works and M/s MS Enterprises, that both these units are in existence, that the Pancha witnesses, in whose presence Panchnama had been prepared, have submitted affidavits stating that M/s MS Enterprises and M/s Jyoti Leather Works were in existence, that though the appellant had requested for cross examination of the panchas, the same was not allowed, that the appellant had no capacity to manufacture the quantity of leather footwear which according to the departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of value upto Rs. 50 lakhs. The appellant's plea is that the clearances of the goods manufactured by them were worth Rs.31,95,792/- only and the balance quantity valued at Rs.80,07,632/- had been purchased from M/s MS Enterprises and M/s Jyoti Leather Works. However, on enquiry by the investigating officers, no units with this name were found to be existing at the addresses given by the appellant and the summons sent to M/s MS Enterprises and M/s Jyoti Leather Works through registered post were returned by the postal authorities with the remarks that these units not exists at their given addresses. Even on visit by the investigating officers to the addresses of these units, as given by the appellant, no such unit was found and in this regard panchnamas were drawn. Other than disputing the correctness of the Panchnama regarding officers, visit to the given addresses of M/s MS Enterprises and M/s Jyoti Leather Works, the appellant have not given any clarification about their non-existence. When the appellant claim that they have purchased the leather shoes worth Rs.80,07,632/- from M/s MS Enterprises and M/s Jyoti Leather Works during 1999-2000 and on enquiry at the addresses of....