2017 (11) TMI 1517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pproved 100% EOU for the said purpose. Based on certain information, the Central Excise officers conducted certain enquiry and verification with regard to the activities of the said 100% EOU. On completion of enquiry, proceedings were initiated against the unit and various other persons for loss of customs duty due to violation of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and also proposing penalties on various persons. The case against the EOU is that they have not undertaken any manufacture as mandated in the permission nor they have followed the procedure for getting the goods manufactured from the job workers. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The original authority held that the main noticee (M/s. Hi-Bright Apparels I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the appellant's role in the whole case has been well brought out during the investigation. These are corroborated by various admissible statements deposed by the appellant himself. Even the purported retraction of the initial deposition was again clarified by the appellant by affirming the facts which were found against the appellant. The provisions of section 112 are rightly invoked against the appellant and he submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the finding. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The case of the appellant is against the penalty imposed under section 112(a). We have perused the findings recorded in the impugned order. Para 39 of the impugned order deals with the findings with ref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut following any of the procedures and was also aware that goods cleared to the job workers were sold by the job workers in the domestic market without payment of duty. As regards Shri Arunachalam's retraction of the statement dated 9.2.2007 vide his letter dated 1.3.2007, from his statement recorded on 25.4.2007, I find that Shri Arunachalam to question No. 9 answered that  I have mistakenly addressed a letter dated 1.3.2007, wherein I had incorporated certain details quite contrary to the facts deposed on 9.2.2007. My statement deposed on 9.2.2007 was a voluntary statement given by me based on facts and was not obtained under any threat or coercion. I fully admit the facts detailed in my statement dated 9.2.2007" ....