TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,79,846/- along with interest thereon has been confirmed against the appellant M/s Simco Paints Industries Ltd. (Simco, in short), along with interest thereon and also imposing equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 2. The Misc. application seeks condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the appeal. The reason stated is that the office of the Advocate of the appellant was under shift of premises and some of the papers required for filing of the appeal were mis-placed and it took some time for locating the papers and filing the appeal due to which the delay occurred. Considering the reasons stated as satisfactory, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The facts relevant to the case are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learance of paints without payment of duty either by issuing parallel invoices/non-issue of invoices, collection of sales proceeds in cash, etc. On completion of investigation, a show cause notice dated 2-4-2012 was issued proposing to demand the duty evaded along with interest and also proposing to impose penalties on the appellant firm and also others who aided/abetted the evasion. The said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order wherein the duty demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty equivalent to duty was imposed on the main appellant M/s Simco. Penalties were also imposed on S/Shri. Manoj Pyarelal Mittal, Managing Director, Yogeshkumar Mittal, Manager of the appellant at Bangalore, Sundar B, Nirankari and M.L. Bhuj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te investigation, the charges against the appellant do not stand proved. Accordingly he pleads for grant of stay and remand of the matter back to the adjudicating authority. 5. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue strongly refutes the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the appellant. He submits that the appellant has acknowledged the receipt of the relied upon documents. The non-relied upon documents have also been duly returned by the investigating agency as revealed from the records. Thus there is no basis for the allegation of non-furnishing of documents. As regards denial of cross-examination, the appellant has not given details of the persons required to be cross-examined and the reasons therefore. Further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e documents & files seized under Panchnama dated 24/04/2010 at the factory, office & sales depot of M/s Karshni/Simco Paints Industries Pvt. Ltd." 6.2 As regards the non-receipt of data stored in the computer seized during the investigation, the print outs of the data contained therein were taken during the Panchanama Proceedings dated 24/6/2010 and 25/6/2010. Sri Muralidharan Nair, authorized signatory was present during the said proceedings and have acknowledged as follows:- "I was present throughout the Panchanama proceedings and it is recorded as per facts. Received copy of Panchanama and print outs taken during the course of Panchnama Proceedings. I have no complaint." Further vide letter dated 9/7/2010, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pute having received the relied upon documents mentioned in para 37 of the show-cause notice. 6.5 From this factual position evidenced from the records, the contention of the appellant that they were not given copies of the relied upon documents is clearly not sustainable and accordingly we reject this contention. As regards the non-handing over of the non-relied upon documents, it is on record that the same had already been returned to the concerned parties as evidenced from the letter dated 21-10-2013 of the investigating agency to the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the contention in this regard fails completely. 6.6 The next question for consideration is whether denial of cross-examination has prejudiced the cause of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id firm. Sri. Chainram Jakhar has given bill wise details of the quantity of lime sold to M/s Simco in cash which were not found recorded in the books of accounts of M/s Simco. These transactions have been confirmed and corroborated by the statements recorded from the suppliers of raw materials, purchasers of finished products and the officials of the appellant firm. Further Sri. Manoj Mittal, Managing Director of the appellant firm in his confessional statements recorded vide statements dated 21-11-2011 and 17-2-2012 have admitted to these facts. Thus sufficient documentary evidences are available in the records to confirm the manufacture and clearance of paints without payment of duty by the appellant. In any case it is a settled position....