TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itten submissions filed by them. Heard Shri S.R. Sundar, learned counsel for the appellant M/s. Anghinghu Nice Tobacco Firm. Heard the learned SDR on behalf of the respondent. 2.1 The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 8-6-2001 the officers of DGCEI visited the factory premises of the appellant-firm and recovered certain private records which were maintained in blue ink and red ink and several documents under panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses. Statements were recorded on 8-6-2001 from Shri M. Sundararajan, Manager-cum-authorized signatory of the appellant-firm and from Shri M. Chandra Mohan, Accountant of the appellant-firm and also from Shri Veeramuthu Pillai, one of the partners of the appellant-firm. All the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding to the appellant-firm show that there was no unaccounted production and clandestine removal. 2.3 Show Cause Notice was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 1,40,093/- and Rs. 1,28,792/- on two counts. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,38,504/- and also imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant-firm. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each on Shri M. Sundararajan and Shri Chandra Mohan. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order but for the reducing the penalties on the employees to Rs. 2,500/- each. 3. Learned counsel for the main appellant M/s. Anghingu Nice Tobacco Firm took me through various documents including Synopsis and, inter alia, made the following submissions :- (a) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the fact that they have asked for hearing. (g) Many documents which were relied upon as per the Show Cause Notice have not been discussed in the orders of the authorities below and similarly many defence documents submitted by them were not considered by the authorities below. (h) The local sales effected by Shri M. Sundararajan and M. Chandra Mohan were on their own account and without the knowledge of the firm. Their submission that no brands like deluxe and super deluxe were registered in their name with the Trademarks authorities have not been considered. (i) Shri Veeramuthu Pillai was admitted to hospital on 9-6-2001 and various letters addressed by him clearly w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indulged in suppression of production and clandestine removal by maintaining distinguishable records for clandestine removal of goods, the five year period from the date of removal of the goods are to be adopted. The claim that what was cleared unaccounted was not branded is not supported by any evidence and the same is also contrary to the statements initially given by them. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of M/s. Anghingu Nice Tobacco Firm and perused the grounds of appeal in respect of the other appellants and also the submissions of the learned SDR. I have perused the records as well including the records which indicated unaccounted and accounted clearances in blue ink and red ink respectively, which hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on him and as submitted, he is no more. 6. I would like to deal with other issues put forth by the learned counsel. As the statements were recorded at the factory premises, the summons have been issued on the spot, and therefore I do not find any irregularity about it. The format of the summons basically conveys the legal provisions relating to a magisterial proceeding. The statements have been taken by Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer, under proceedings which were deemed to be judicial proceedings under Sections 193 and 223 of the IPC. Therefore, the wordings of the summons are in the nature of revealing the legal provisions to the person to whom summons were issued. I find the Show Cause Notice was issued by the Addit....