TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8-99 to 2000-01 and two notebooks for July 2000 and August 2000 respectively from the premises of the Appellant Company. It has also recorded the statements of the employees and the Director of the Appellant Company. As a follow-up action, the Central Excise officers visited the offices of the several transporters and recorded the statements of the employees of the transporters and also recovered the lorry receipts from the premises of the transporters. 2. A Show Cause Notice dt.09.11.2001 was issued, proposing demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,81,649.00 alongwith interest and to impose penalty for the period 1998-99 to 2000-01. It has also proposed to impose penalty on the Director of the Appellant Company (Appellant no.2) amongst others. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty on the Appellant amongst others. The Appellants filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), C.E. & C, Daman. By the Order-in-Appeal No.KU/411 to 414/DAMAN/2005, dt.13/14.12.2005, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order and remanded the case to the Adjudicating authority with direction to supply the relied upon doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the documents recovered from the premises of the transport company were approved by the employees of the Appellant Company in their statements. Further, the employees and the Director of the Appellant Company had seen the statement and therefore, there is no requirement of cross examination of the employees of the transport company. He submits that the Adjudicating authority had given detailed findings of clandestine removal of the goods in each year beyond the SSI exemption limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Central Excise officers visited the Appellant s factory on 22.08.2000 and resumed the files containing invoices, Note Books and also recorded the statements of the employees and Directors of the Appellant Company. The Central Excise officers also visited several transport companies and recovered the L.Rs. and Dispatch Registers and recorded the statements of the employees of the transport companies. The Appellants deposited the amount of Rs. 75,000.00 at the instance of the Central Excise officers. Subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the consignee, and packages mentioned in their booking registers are true and correct. 7. Shri Bam Bhola Babu Ram Tiwari, Manager of M/s Sachdeva Roadways Pvt. Ltd, in his statement dt.28.11.2000, stated that he was shown the statement prepared by the Central Excise officers on the basis of their booking registers, which was produced by them on 27.05.2000 showing the details of mixers/grinders cleared by M/s Mukesh Appliances Pvt.Ltd, Daman of the booking in the name of M/s Sakaria Appliances. It is further stated that that the name of M/s Sakaria Appliances has been shown as a consignor, has been prepared for the goods cleared by M/s Mukesh Appliances and for the same goods cleared by M/s Mukesh Appliances Pvt.Ltd and the consignor has been shown as M/s Sakaria Appliances in their booking register. 8. On perusal of the statements, it appears that the Central Excise officers prepared the statements of the clearance of the goods on the basis of dispatch registers and the L.Rs. recovered from the office of Transport Companies and recorded the statements of the employees of the transport companies. The Appellants requeste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply with the direction of Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen from the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Appellants stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that whole demand is based on the registers of the transporter which was not provided to the Appellant, and also they could not have been granted opportunity of cross examination. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the officers prepared the details of clearance on the basis of records (L.R. book, booking register, dispatch register), produced by the transporter. Even though the Commissioner (Appeals) had not provided the copy of the documents and the cross examination of the employees of the transporter. The Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of the statement of Shri Ramesh Chandra Paliwal, Storekeeper of the Appellant Company recorded on the different dates, wherein he admitted the fact that he was attending the work of maintaining notebook of finished goods to be dispatched from the factory and stock remaining balance . Shri Madanlal Jain, Director of the Appellant Company (Appellant No.2) had also agreed with the statement of Shri Rames....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal to have guesswork as to for what purposes the Appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the Appellant wanted from them. The relevant portion of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) is reproduced below:- "7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No.2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting ....