TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 11AC of CEA, 1944 against the Applicant No.(1) and personal penalty of ₹ 5/- lakh imposed on the Applicant No.(2) namely, Shri Raman Agarwal, Authorised Signatory of the Applicant company. 2. It is the case of the Revenue that the Applicant company during the relevant time, had manufactured and supplied various hardware items to different Electricity Boards on the basis of purchase orders issued to them. The conditions stipulated in the Tender documents/purchase orders indicate that the Applicant company was required to manufacture and supply various goods mentioned in the said purchase orders. Also, the inspection and testing of the equipments were to be carried out at the premises of the Applicant company. During the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion that the departments failure to record statements from all the suppliers canot be construed that the goods were not procured by them. He has further submitted that the impugned Order is issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the statement of Shri Raman Agarwal dated 13.03.2007 had not been supplied to them. Also he has submitted that the statements recorded by the Department were only of six persons out of the list of 33 suppliers submitted by them, of which two statements were contradictory and only four statements were against them. He has further submitted that they were not allowed to cross-examine these witnesses. Further, he has submitted that during the period from December, 2003 to June, 2006, whatev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention to the Order of the Commissioner, wherein he has dealt at length and advanced reasons as to why request for cross-examination of the persons could not be extended to the Applicant company. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The Applicant company had supplied finished products namely, electrical hardware items, to various Electricity Boards against Tenders/Purchase orders which are referred to in the impugned Order at page 4 reveal that they had been treated as manufacturers of various goods while awarding the tenders and placing the purchase orders on them. Further, the Applicant companys plea that they were not manufacturers of the goods in question, but they got it manufactured from outside job workers and also purchas....