TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02, dated 3-9-2002 passed by the this Tribunal wherein the adjudicating authority was directed to supply copies of the relied upon documents and also documents not relied upon to the appellant. 2.  In the impugned order the adjudicating authority has observed that copies of some of the documents were given to the appellant and the appellant was also asked to approach the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for inspection and taking copies of the documents which the appellants failed to comply with. The appellant also did not avail of the number of opportunities given to them for personal hearing and accordingly he has proceeded to adjudicate the matter based on the replies filed by the appellant, M/s. Markas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and, therefore, the charge of suppression of production and clandestine removal of goods have not been established by the Revenue with substantive evidence. Hence, the impugned order, confirming the duty demand and imposing penalties on the appellant is not sustainable in law. 3.2 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of I. Gurusamy v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai - 2005 (145) E.L.T. 616 in support of the above contentions. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the appellants were given adequate opportunity to inspect and take copies of the documents relied upon which the appellants failed to avail. Therefore, the appellants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the copies of the part of the documents relied upon and only a few were pending to be supplied. However, from the department's letter dated 16-3-2004 it is seen that xerox copies of these documents, duly attested, were sent to the appellants by registered post personally. In the said letter, it was also directed that if the appellants wanted any more documents they should approach the office of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Satara Division. Thereafter, the appellant did not pursue the matter. Thus, it is seen that the appellants had been given copies of the documents and also been provided with opportunity to inspect and take copies of other documents. Therefore, the charge of the appellant that principles of natural justice wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded on 8-10-1998, 9-10-1998, 30-12-1998 and 16-4-1999, it is evident that the appellant had suppressed production of the plastic pipes manufactured by the appellant in their statutory accounts and had cleared these goods without payment of Central Excise duty and without issue of invoices. It was also clearly admitted that the goods appearing in the private records were manufactured by the appellant-firm but were not accounted for in the RG-1 register. Similarly, the statement of Shri Anil Pahlaraj Budhawani, Managing Partner of the dealer of the appellant, i.e., M/s. Makhija Enterprises Co., who was the sole distributor for the products manufactured by the appellant, it is clear that, many of the transactions, though shown to have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as adduced evidence in respect of suppression of production and clandestine removal, then the onus shifts to the appellant and it is the appellant's responsibility to show that they have recorded all the production and clearances in their books of account. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Phoenix Mills [2004 (168) E.L.T. 310 (Bom.)] in this regard. 5.3  In view of these evidences available on record, the finding of the adjudicating authority with respect to clandestine production and removal of goods cannot be faulted at all. Accordingly, we uphold the demand of duty of Rs. 18,57,661/- along with interest thereon. Since the appellant has resorted to suppression of facts, pen....