TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the basis of retrieval of certain documents from the premises of Shri Kumbharamji Jaluram Verma, the folding and packing contractor of the Respondent, on 30.12.97 and evidences in the form of statements collected subsequently from various persons, demand notice was issued to the Respondent alleging removal of 22,38,643 L. Mtrs. of processed fabrics during the period October, 1997 to December 1997 without payment of duty of Rs. 93,75,437/-. On adjudication, the demand was dropped by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in Appeal. 3. Ld. A.R. Shri Sameer Chitkara for the Revenue reiterating the grounds of Appeal has submitted that even though there are overw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cally informed to the officers that the day to day affairs of the unit had been looked after by him and Shri Kumbharamji Jaluram Verma, who was carrying out folding and packing of the finished goods in their factory during the period October 1997 to December 1997. Since the statements of Shri Manish Patel and Shri Kumbharamji Jaluram Verma have not been retracted, therefore, the statement of Shri Keshavlal Dwarkadas Patel given after two years, and also contradictory to the statements of Shri Manish Patel and Shri Kumbharamji Jaluram Verma, hence not acceptable. This receives support from the statement Shri Keshavlal Patel that he did not legally hold any office with the Respondent but worked as a Manger without any consideration. Ld. A.R. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....12.05, before the adjudicating authority, no other clinching evidence is available on record to establish the case of manufacture and removal of 22,38,643 L. Mtrs. of processed fabrics during the period October 1997 to December 1997 without payment of duty. Ld. Advocate has further submitted that even though the Revenue has recorded the statement of Keshavlal Dwarkadas Patel on 21.3.2001, which was in favour of the Respondent, however, the same was not enclosed with the show cause notice. It is his contention that taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the capacity of the manufacturing unit, the authenticity of the records retrieved from the premises of Shri Kumbharamji Jaluram Verma and cross-e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... words, the documents retrieved from the premises of Kumbharamji Jaluram Verma on 30.12.97 is the foundation of the allegation against the Respondent, as search of their factory premises, on the very same day, neither revealed any discrepancy in the stock of goods nor any incriminating document was also found in their factory premises. It is the finding of the ld. Commissioner, that the Revenue could not establish that entries of removal of goods mentioned in the loose sheets/documents pertained only to one unit i.e. Respondents unit, whereas, Shri Kumbharamji Jaluram Verma during his cross-examination indicated that that as an independent Folding and Packing contractor, he also undertook job of other units and that the entries made in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso the investigation files were directed to be produced before the Bench for perusal. From the said files, the Revenue could not show when the summons were issued and who were identified as buyers and what attempt was made by the investigating officers to ascertain the clandestine clearance from the factory and corresponding receipt of the said goods by the buyers whose names are mentioned in said loose sheets. On the other hand, we notice from the note sheet side of the said preventive investigation file that after initial search and seizure in December 1997 no detail noting had been recorded on further investigation carried out till 2000. Thus, practically, there was no detailed investigation during the said period as rightly concluded b....