AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fiscation of 9136.320 MT of CPO (industrial grade/CPO non-edible grade) valued at Rs. 17,16,48,616/- under section 110 of the Customs Act further denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and further confirming the demand of Customs duty on allegation of evasion to the tune of Rs. 7,87,86,716/- under proviso to section 28 of the Customs Act read with rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 112, 114A of the Customs Act. Further penalty of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs each under section 112 have been imposed upon the dealers of the appellant M/s.Bhagwan Vanaspati Mills Ltd., who are the other appellants in this batch of appeals and also imposed penalty of Rs. 25.00 Lakhs each under section 112 on Shri Sanjeev Agarwal and Ms.Seema Agarwal, Directors of the company. As the investigation and impugned order is common, all the appeals are taken up together for disposal. The time petition filed by appellant Jeevan Ram Sunil Kumar and Goel Oil Stores are dismissed, there being no ostensible reason for adjournment. 2. This is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce/documents to point out any infirmity/discrepancy in the records of M/s Mega Sales referred to in the SCN in support of their defence and to justify the need for cross examination, I observe that their request for cross examination is not justified and has no force in it." 7. The first reason for denial of the cross examination adopted by the Adjudicating Authority is that the statement of Shri Rajiv Singhal is not the sole basis of the show cause notice inasmuch as the dealers have admitted having purchased soaps in cash. We really fail to understand as to how the above fact of the dealers having purchased and sold the soaps in cash can be held to be prejudiced to the appellant. In fact the same supports their stand that laundry soap stands manufactured and sold by them to the dealers. In any case, the said fact cannot be adopted as a ground for denial of cross examination of Shri Rajiv Singhal. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has observed that the said appellant has not supplied to the records/documents including the details of the payment made to M/s Mega Sales. Apart from the fact that the appellant had not filed any reply to the notice and as s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the intended purpose and further obtain end use certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise officer. Admittedly the appellant have followed all the prescribed procedure and obtained the end use certificate and on such satisfaction the excise officer have subsequently released the bond executed by the appellant, certifying that the goods were used for the declared/ intended purpose. As per the subsequent investigation done by Revenue, from one M/s.Mega Sales, from whom the appellant had claimed to have purchased Caustic Soda, required for manufacture of laundry soap. The statement of Shri Rajeev Singhal, Director of M/s.Mega Sales was recorded to the effect that Mr Rajeev Singhal stated that entire quantity reflected in the records of M/s.Bhagwan Vanaspati Mills Ltd., does not stand sold by him. In further investigation with the buyers of laundry soap from the appellant, some of the traders appeared and accepted having purchased the laundry soap from the appellant. Further enquiry made by Central Excise Department from the Sales Tax Department also supported manufacture of laundry soap and clearance of the same on payment of applicable sales tax including proper disclosur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection, in the second and third copy of the same invoice number available with M/s.Mega Sales, showed clearance to some other party. But Revenue has failed to make any enquiry from such parties whose names appeared in the records of M/s.Mega Sales. The Ld.Counsel further submits that all these issues were considered by this Tribunal in the earlier round, and directions given to the Ld.Commissioner to ensure attendance of Mr. Rajeev Singhal of M/s.Mega Sales for the purpose of examination/cross-examination for the ends of justice. Accordingly he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 4. The Ld.AR for revenue have relied upon the impugned order. He further states that in spite of repeated summons sent to Mr.Rajeev Singhal of M/s.Mega Sales, the Ld.Commissioner could not have done anything more. Accordingly he prays for dismissing the appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions we find that all the issues stood concluded by this Tribunal earlier and directions given to cross-examine the said Shri Rajeev Singhal of M/s.Mega Sales. We hold that there is failure on the part of the Ld.Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction vested in him for ensuring t....