TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain details of cone yarn bags and on interrogation, it was informed that those were the details of purchase of cone yarn bags from appellant. Shri K. Palanichamy, Partner of Pathanee Textiles disclosed that he had purchased cotton cone yarn under cover of AR3A from appellant without any sales invoice against payment of cash. It therefore appeared that there was misuse of Rule 96E procedure for transportation of dutiable goods and their sale without payment of excise duty. Visits were made by departmental officers to M/s.Vijayeswari Textiles, Udumalpet on 17.08.99 where it was emerged that there was no production in the said unit for the last 1 = months in view of electricity disconnection. Another team of excise officers made a visit to fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellants is the statement of Shri Duraisamy and the documents authored by him. Statements of brokers and buyers were recorded on the basis of what was stated by Shri Duraisamy. It further appears to us that the appellants denied that Shri Duraisamy was the Technical Director of the company. Learned Commissioner considered him to be Technical Director of the company for the period of dispute and, accordingly, his statement was taken to be a statement of the company. After observing that Shri Duraisamy's statement was not retracted, learned Commissioner proceeded to record a finding to the effect that the allegation of clandestine removal of Cotton Cone yearn was admitted by the company. The entries contained in the private notebooks....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under : (i) In their reply dt.31.09.04 to the SCN, appellant had taken a clear stand that Mr. P. Duraisamy is not their Technical Director and that it was essential to cross-examine him to get the full truth. (ii) Only after the direction given by CESTAT in their Final order dt. 30.08.2006 was the cross examination allowed by the adjudicating authority. (iii) In the cross-examination, the said P. Duraisamy has clearly denied that he was not the Technical Director of the mill and he was not on the Board of Directors ; that he printed a visiting card that he was a Technical Director of the company only to improve his personal business; based on the same, the Central Excise officers made him to write the statement on 17.08.99; the enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement letter on the next date itself which aspect has not been addressed by the adjudicating authority. 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri Cletus supports the impugned order. He further submits that the retraction of statement by P. Duraisamy has been done after seven years after his original statement and therefore should not be taken cognizance of. Further documents such as loose sheets, private note books etc. i.e. cone sales note books and one file containing Profit and Loss Account, computer print outs were recovered from the factory on 17.8.99 which corroborate the charge of clandestine removals by the appellant. The authenticity of the above evidences was accepted by P. Duraisamy in his deposition dt. 17.8.99, and which was not ret....