2008 (2) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f cross-examination of the Government examiner of questioned documents "has prejudiced the case of the respondents and is sufficient to drop demand on 220 parallel invoices and 16 Grs" when their issuance and clearance was otherwise accepted by the authorized signatory and the Director of the noticee in their statements under the Central Excise Act ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no material was disclosed by the department in the show cause notice to establish the consumption of electricity when in the show cause notice dated 18.3.2005 at para 14 it is clearly recorded that the consumption of electricity was based on scrutiny of electricity bills vis-a-vis production of steel ingots by the noticee during the perio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mediately reversed the Cenvat credit of Rs.75,980/- vide RG-23A Part II account debit entry No.123 dated 3.9.2001. The officers also searched the factory head office, residential premises of Shri Raman Kumar Jha, Authorized Signatory and Sunil Kumar Gupta, Director of the respondent-company and nothing incriminating was found. It appears that an informer provided copies of 220 parallel invoices and 16 original copies of the GRs to the Central Excise Officers. The statements of the authorized signatory and the Director of the respondent company were recorded. Based on these, it has been alleged that the respondent-company had been issuing more than one invoices against a particular serial number, clearing goods under all these invoices and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee etc. and therefore, charge of clandestine removal against the assessee was not proved. The Tribunal also found that the statement of the authorized signatory of the respondent was retracted by him on 4.9.2001 and the same could not be relied upon by the Revenue to make the basis for passing the impugned order of imposing duty and penalty. The relevant part of the finding of the Tribunal recorded vide order dated 28.5.2007 is reproduced as under:- "In the present case, we find that the statement dated 3.9.2001 of Shri Raman Kumar, authorized signatory of the appellant was retracted by him on 4.9.2001 as received by the office on 10.9.2001. The adjudicating authority brushed aside the retraction of statement by saying an afterthought....