2017 (11) TMI 1505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ton Yarn and Polyester Yarn. The allegations raised against the respondents were that they were removing Cone Yarn (dutiable) without paying duty under the guise of Hank Yarn (exempted). Show-cause notices were issued alleging clandestine clearance of goods and proposing for demand of duty, interest and for imposing penalties. 3.   After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the proposal in the show-cause notice and imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals vide Order-in-Appeal, dated 17.11.2005. The respondents filed appeal before the Tribunal and vide Final Order, dated 25.05.2006 and 30.05.2006 remanded the matter to the original authority direction to allow cross-examination....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng unit have made voluntary depositions that there was no actual movement/conversion of yarns but had only paper transaction in consideration for pecuniary benefits; (e) The person i-charge of the M/s. S.P. Trading, M/s. Venkateshwara Tiles and M/s. Vijay Textiles have made voluntary depositions that they received cone yarn under the hank yarn Invoices; and (f) The confessional statement of the transporter M/s. Sri Ram Tempo Service and M/s. Kannaibran Lorry Service that they had not transported yarn from the two mills to the reeling units but to the yarn traders only. 5. The learned Authorised Representative added that the GC notes and Memo pads are almost the same. The details furnished by the transporter in GC notes showed entry....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....statements of co-noticees. Though, the respondents had requested for cross-examination of such co-noticees, it was not allowed initially. Only after the matter was remanded by the Tribunal, the appellants had opportunity to cross-examine the co-noticees. In such cross-examination, the co-noticees have retracted their statements. On cross-examination, they have categorically stated that the Cone-yarn was received under AR3A's Certificates duly countersigned by Excise Officers and converted into  Hank Yarn and removed. Further, they have produced documentary evidences like sales tax assessment orders for the year 2001- 2002, which contains details of Hank Yarn sold. Thus, there is no evidence to establish the allegations raised in th....