TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Goel, Director submits that adjudication related to the period 2005-06 to 2007-08. In the adjudication M/s.Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd. has faced duty demand of Rs. 1,08,98,927 and penalty of equal amount followed by interest. Sri Anant Dave, Director has faced penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs and Sri Sanjay Goel, Director has faced penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. According to the Advocate for the appellant Sri Kailash Agarwal, who is in SP No.56974/13 submitted that investigation made on 20.12.2006 and 21.12.2006 resulted in recovery of certain documents which paved the way for further investigation into the transactions of Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd. and Shree Bajrang Transport. Investigation made to Shree Bajaran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4 thereof (Ref: internal page 34 of the appeal folder) against such mischief, an FIR was also filed against Shree Bajrang Transport. Investigation made on 28.8.2007 resulted with the allegation that appellant companys involvement was in clandestine removal ignoring the mischief played by Shree Bajrang Transport. 5. According to appellant company and its Directors, Revenue did not allow any cross examination of Shree Bajrang Transport while evidence of that transporter was used against the appellant company. Relying on the decision of Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE, Meerut-I vs. Parmarth Iron P.Ltd. -2010 (260) ELT 514 (Alld), it was submitted that cross examination can reveal veracity of evidence used against the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supports the adjudication and submits that even minor demand Rs. 1 lakh appearing in the adjudication order was rightly calculated by Revenue based on material evidence recovered from Sri Kailash Agarwal. Substantial demand arose out of material gathered and recovered from Shree Bajrang Transport who was transporter of goods of appellant. Appellants were given adequate opportunity for rebuttal. When material evidence were gathered from the entries in the records of Shree Bajrang Transport against appellant, first course of natural justice was followed bringing out the allegation in clear terms in show cause notice for defence of the appellant. But no allegation could be defended. Cross examination was allowed. But partner of Shree Bajrang ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in glove to facilitate clandestine clearance of dutiable goods and caused prejudiced to the interest of Revenue. 12. Heard both sides, perused the records and examined the submission made by both sides. 13. It is admitted fact that investigation into the case of Kailash Agarwal, Commission agent and Shree Bajrang transport resulted in recovery of incriminating evidence against the appellant company. None of the documents recovered imputing them to the charge in the adjudication order and allegation in Show Cause Notice could be disowned by any of the parties. The appellant Company failed to lead evidence in its defence and materials recovered could not be discarded. Kailash Agarwal and Shree Bajrang Transport provided cogent and credibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant. At this Prima facie stage, it has become difficult to rule out credibility of evidence gathered by investigation and used against the appellant. 16. Enquiry was made into various statements recorded by Revenue. Statement of Sri Anant Dave shows that Revenue was misled by him to reach to its conclusion. Similarly statement recorded from Shree Bajrang Transport shows premeditated design by these appellants against Revenue. 17. Considering the quantum of demand of duty of Rs. 1,08,98,297/- and equal amount of penalty, followed by interest against duty demand on the appellant company, we direct the appellant M/s. Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd. to deposit Rs. 70 lakhs ( adjusting any amount if paid p....