TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the form of Customs duty and Central Excise duty. 3. Ld.Counsel would take us through the entire Order-in-Original and various other documents. It is his submission that the department's allegation is that the appellant had not used duty free raw materials and not manufactured semi-finished goods, but on the other hand, the consignees to whom the Revenue is alleging that they have supplied the finished goods, were issued with Show Cause Notices that they have received duty free goods from the main appellant M/s Laurel Apparels Pvt. Ltd and others and diverted the same after in-bonding in their factory. It is his submission that the entire list of relied upon documents is nothing but the photo-copies of the statements recorded and relied upon in the earlier Show Cause Notice dt.28.02.2005, issued to various assessees. It is his submission that the entire case is merely based upon the statements and the Department's case cannot sustain merely on the statements, when there is voluminous documentary evidence like CT-3, D-3 declaration, DTA permission, intimation of clearance of waste and reject etc. It is also his submission that no reliance can be placed on statements, which the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant is also having serious financial hardships as there is a net loss for the year 31.03.2011 and accumulated loss of Rs.14,48,540/- for the year ending 31.03.2011. Nevertheless, it is his submission that in one Show Cause Notice, there was a demand of Rs.90 lakhs and the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.45 lakhs in order to hear and dispose the appeal in earlier round of litigation, which they have done so and the said amount of Rs.45 lakhs is still lying with the Department. 4. Ld.D.R ., on the other hand, would submit that the Revenue's case is entirely based upon the evidences of statements recorded of the authorities concerned, who are engaged in day to day functioning of the appellant's units. He would take us through the various findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. It is also his submission that none of the statements were retracted in a manner, which is considered in accordance with law. It is his submission that the appellant had imported various inputs indicating them as for use in EOU and has diverted the entire consignment, and thereby has mis-utilised the facility granted to EOU and this is a fit case (sic) for waiver of the condition of pre-deposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the issue and decide whether the issue is covered by earlier decisions of the Tribunal cited or not and come to a conclusion. In, this connection, his observations are reproduced as under:- "On consideration, I find that the Tribunal decision in the case of Defiance Clothing was based on the Tribunal's decision in the case of ABN Granites Ltd Vs CCE Cochin, is in turn based on the Tribunal decision in the case of Kuntal Granites (P) Ltd. and another Vs CCE Belgaum - 2001 (132) ELT 214 (T) . The said decision in the case of Kuntal Granites (P) Ltd., in turn referred to the instructions issued by CBEC vide Circular No. 21/95-Cus , dated 10.03.1995 and 122/1995, dated 28.11.1995 and the Tribunal order in the case of Vishal Footwear Ltd - 1999 (114) ELT 60 (T) . In the case of Vishal Footwear, reliance was placed on CBEC circular No. 21/95-Cus , dt.10.03.1995." 10. As observed by the Commissioner, even though in Para 2 in the Defiance Clothing's case, the facts have been stated briefly and from the facts it is clear that there was an admission that there was diversion of raw material, yet, the Tribunal took note of the fact that in ABN Granites Ltd's case, the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulfilled the export obligation and if they had fulfilled the export obligation, the Development Commissioner would have issued such a certificate. It is surprising that the appellants are choosing not to get a certificate from the Development Commissioner which is, indeed, required also for their own purpose and instead they require that the Commissioner should make a reference to Development Commissioner and go on, waiting for a reply. It has to be noted that the Revenue has conducted detailed investigations and in this case, Shri Mahendra Kumar Sancheti , Director of the appellant, had clearly admitted that the vehicle numbers shown on the body of the invoices under which the clearances were shown just to fill the appropriate column and, in fact, no goods were physically sent. The submission made in this regard was that there was a mistake in making entry of vehicle number. However, such mistakes can happen in the case of one or two invoices, whereas we find that in this case, as many as 14 invoices were found to be having wrong vehicle numbers. Moreover, as many as 7 statements of Shri Mahendra Kumar Sancheti , Director were recorded on different dates, wherein he not only admit....