2014 (11) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he adjudicating authority. 2. Shri Paritosh Gupta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that a show cause notice dated 14.02.2006 was issued to the appellant, inter-alia, demanding duty of Rs. 21,10,410/- on the basis of investigations initiated on 25.05.2001 and a Panchnama was recorded with respect to certain shortages found in the factory premises of the appellant. That OIO dated 16.03.2007 confirmed demands of Rs. 2,50,474/- but demand of Rs. 18,57,936/- was set-aside by the adjudicating authority. That on an appeal filed by the appellant Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dated 30.05.2007 set-aside the confirmation of demand of Rs. 2,50,474/- also which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. That Revenue did not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case records. A case of clandestine manufacturing and removal of processed fabrics was made against the appellant demanding duty of Rs. 21,10,410/- out of which demand of Rs. 2,50,474/- was, inter-alia, confirmed by adjudicating authority vide OIO No. 11/Addl. Comm/2006 dated 16.03.2007/ 12.04.2007 and the remaining demand was dropped mainly on the ground that Panchnama recorded during the search operation could not be relied upon as the same was found to be not a fair record of the search proceedings. Revenue did not accept the order passed by adjudicating authority and filed appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 31.01.2008 set-aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority against which the present ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m the above, Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that the adjudicating authority himself has held that Panchnama so recorded, cannot be relied upon as the same was found to be recorded by unfair means. If the drawal of Panchnama was itself doubtful, the entire case booked by preventive branch cannot be allowed to stand on its own legs. What falls in part, cannot be upheld in whole. Inasmuch as the adjudicating authority himself has disbelieved the story of investigation and drawal of Panchnama, the allegations of shortages and resultant clandestine removal cannot be upheld. As rightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals), the various statements recorded by the officers during the course of investigation being corroborative of each other, wou....