TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered with liberty to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. Further, penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed against each of the three Directors. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the present appeals. 4. Pursuant to the visit to the premises of the appellants at Ghaziabad on 13-11-2011 and on perusal of the records pertaining to the raw material, the Department was able to get the following details in relation to the period from 1998-99 to 2001-2002 and consequently a show cause notice dated 26-3-2003 came to be issued to the appellants :- Period Opening stock of raw tobacco as per financial records on 1-4-98 (Qtls.) (RUD-6) Quantity of raw tobacco recd. As per Mandi Smiti Gate passes etc.(Qtls.) (Ann-II) Closing stock of raw tobacco as on 13-11-01 as verified (Qtls.) Quantity of raw tobacco consumed (213-4) (Qtls.) Production as shown in RG-I/RT-12 (Qtls.) Annex-III Quantity of raw tobacco found unaccounted for (Qtls.) (5-6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1998-99 to 2001-02 (upto 12-11-01) 3470.39 2024.39 837.00 22875.23 882200 14053.23 5. It is the case of the appellants that whatever quantity of raw materi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause notice was issued only on 26-3-2003, which was beyond the period of limitation, and that there was no case for invoking extended period of limitation. The liability to pay penalty is also sought to be disputed on behalf of the appellants. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision in the matter of Electronic Control Corporation v. C.C.E., Cochin reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 291, Devi Rubber Products v. C.C.E., Cochin reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 797, Nanhe Mal Export Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-I reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 481, Kiran Udyog Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 571, Nissan Thermoware Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Daman, Vapi reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 191, C.C.E. C.&S.T., Daman v. Nissan Thermoware Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 45 (Guj.), C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Nachiketa Paper Ltd. reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 194 (P&H), Galaxy Indo Fab Ltd. v. C.C.E., Lucknow reported in 2010 (258) E.L.T. 254, C.C.E., Madurai v. N. Manikandan reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 349, Vigirom Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore reported in 2010 (251) E.L.T. 544, C.C.E., Meerut-I v. R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 337 (All.) & R.A. Casting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of granting any cross-examination as it was not disclosed for what purpose the cross-examination was required. He placed reliance in the decision of M.R. Compound & Allied Products (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur reported in 2008 (227) E.L.T. 375, Super Tyres Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Panchkula reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. 363 and Shalini Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 485. 7. It cannot be disputed that the charge of clandestine removal of the goods against the appellants is essentially based on verification of records by the Department in relation to the period from 1998 to 2002 at Ghaziabad Factory. It is also not in dispute that the appellants have four factories at four different places and all the factories are engaged in manufacture of same product. Pursuant to the verification of the records, it was found by the Department that gate passes of Mandi Samiti revealed procurement of raw tobacco by the appellants in their factory at Ghaziabad in large quantity and considering the fact that the manufacture of the final product is in the ratio of one to one with the raw material in the absence of any evidence produced by the appellants about u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actice of transfer of such raw material to such units was being followed for a period of five years. Undoubtedly, the finding is also accompanied by reference to the statements of the witnesses recorded at the relevant time. There can be no grievance made about the failure on the part of the assessee-appellants to produce cogent evidence regarding the transfer of raw materials to the factory at Delhi. But, at the same time, it is a matter of record that the appellants had produced the balance sheets for every year in relation to the relevant period. The balance sheets disclose production of similar product in all those four units, sale thereof, the proceeds received therefrom by the appellants and the duty paid in relation to manufacture of such goods in each of the units. We do not find that at any time the Department having raised any doubt about the factum of production of such goods in three different units at Delhi and sale thereof and payment of duty thereof. It is also not the case of the Department that the raw material for manufacture of those final products in all three units was procured from any source other than transfer of goods from Mohannagar to these three units. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such final product in those three units the appellants had procured raw material from sources other than supply of raw material from its units at Ghaziabad. Being so, we find it difficult to sustain the conclusion that whatever raw material was received at Ghaziabad must have been used only at Ghaziabad only and was not transferred to other units in Delhi. The onus lies on the part of the Department to bring cogent evidence against the removal of the goods by the appellants. 10. As regards the contention of denial of cross-examination of the witnesses, we, however, find that there is no substance in this contention. If we peruse the submission of the witnesses, they do not lend much support to the case of the appellants nor it discloses any prejudice being caused to the appellants. Being so, merely because cross-examination in the case in hand was rejected that cannot be a ground to call that the order to be bad in law. 11. As we have been pointed out earlier that once it was established by the assessee that all four units were engaged in the manufacture of similar product accompanying with the specific defence that the entire raw material for the purpose was primarily....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en any infraction of the application of that principle, has to be judged in the light of the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The basic requirement is that there must be fair play in action. [K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India - (1984) 1 SCC]. The doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula, and its application depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in a particular case. [Union of India v. P.K. Roy - AIR 1968 S.C. 850, Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore - AIR 1972 S.C. 32]. It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent. There is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the subject-matter to be dealt with, and so forth. [Wade's Administrative Law 5th Edn. pp. 472-75]. 10. To sustain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Devesh Rajan and Shri Karan Singh and who explained the entries. Shri Devesh Rajan accepted the entries and admitted manipulation on the advise of Shri S.K. Gupta, Managing Director. In these circumstances as the excess goods were found in the truck which were packed in systematic way to conceal the actual weight and recovery of excess raw material valued at Rs. 8,39,196/- and packing material valued at Rs. 15,10,222/-. In addition to this, the excess finished goods valued at Rs. 1,35,384/- were also found in the factory. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that excess raw material and packing material was received on that day regarding which no evidence was on record. In view of the documentary evidence showing the production and clearance of the goods not reflected in the statutory record, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed." 16. Apparently, the observations therein were in the peculiar facts of the case wherein there was clear admission that the assessee had stored raw material and excess goods and finished goods in the premises and the same facts were not disclosed earlier. It was also a case where the cor....