TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yees including Sh. Karambeer, Driver and business premises of two distributors namely M/s Snow Track India and M/s Abhilasha Sales Corporation. As a result of search, following goods were recovered:- (a) Factory premises : - Finished goods valued at Rs. 53,08,643/- in excess - Raw material valued at Rs. 3,91,495/- in excess (b) Adjacent place : - Invertors/UPS/EVR valued at Rs. 44,555/- (c) Registered office-cum-depot : - Goods valued at Rs. 57,16,476/- involving duty Rs. 7,88,479/- seized and goods found to be repaired and traded released. (d) Residence of Sh. Karambeer : - 544 invertors valued at Rs. 21,76,000/- packed in boxes with manuals etc. (e) M/s Snow Track : - 286 invertors valued at Rs. 16,78,688/- (f) M/s Abhilasha Sales Corporation : - goods valued at Rs. 53,620/- out of these goods valued at Rs. 11,400/- released and goods valued at Rs. 42,220/- detained. During the investigations, statements of Sh. Ram Pal Singh, authorized signatory, Sh. Sudhakar Dwevedi, H.O.D. and Sh. Pradeep Arya, Prop. of M/s Abhilasha Sales Corporation were recorded. The matter was adjudicated resulting in confiscation the goods at various places and imposition of redemption fine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 25 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001, but give an option to its lawful owner to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. Twenty five thousand only. 9. I confirm the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,68,590/- and Rs. 6,755/- on M/s Sukam under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. I Order the recovery of interest at an appropriate rate on the amount of duty confirmed in this order under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. I impose penalty as mentioned below against the name of each person/party under Rule 26 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001:- (i) Rs. Two lacs only against M/s Snow Track India, 44/1, Radhu Place Cinema, Guru Angad Nagar, New Delhi. (ii) Rs. Twenty lacs only upon M/s Abhilasha Sales Corporation, 47, Bank Vihar, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. (iii) Rs. Ten lacs only upon Sh. Kunwar Sachdeva CEO of M/s Sukam Communication Systems Ltd. (iv) Rs. Two lacs only upon Sh. Karambeer Driver of M/s Sukam Communication Systems Ltd." Aggrieved from the order dt. 29.08.2008 of the adjudicating authority, the appellants filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), however the appeals were rejected and the Order-in- O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following case laws in his support: (i) M/s Ambika International & ors. Vs. UOI in CWP No. 12615 of 2016 and others (P&H). (ii) Basudev Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2013 (294) ELT 353 (Del.) (iii) M/s Mahadev Steel Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I vide Final Order No. 60135-60136/2016 dt. 02.05.2016 (Tribunal Chandigarh). 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that cross examination of Sh. Ram Pal Singh was rightly rejected by the first authority and not asked for before second authority; Sh. Ram Pal Singh admitted of unaccounted of goods; Sh. Sudhakar Dvewedi admitted goods were finished and that he was the most appropriate person; copy of the above statement was received by Sh. Munish Kochar and the same was admitted by counsel; goods being unfinished is an afterthought and the party deliberately did not maintain proper and correct records; excise duty paid figures in the chart produced do not tally with monthly returns, hence, the same cannot be relied upon; stock taking was done in the presence of two independent witnesses; no evidence was produced in respect of goods found excess at reg. o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it appears that the noticees are trying to adopt dilatory tactics to delay the adjudication process on one pretext or the other." As the impugned statement was given on 21.04.2004, the ground taken by the appellants is not tenable. 6.2 I also find that on the request for cross examination of witnesses, the adjudicating authority has given the following findings about that cross examination: "Coming to the last issue in the defence reply, the request for cross examination was decided by the previous adjudicating authority, vide communication dt. 10.03.2004, holding that no ground for allowing the cross examination of the department officers and their employees including the Authorized Signatory. I agree with the finding dt. 10.03.2004." The above finding clearly shows that the request for cross examination has not been examined afresh by the adjudicating authority and there is adoption of findings of previous adjudicating authority without fresh application of mind. Such an approach is also in violation of the principles of natural justice as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Basudev Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs (supra). 6.3 I also find that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the question of offering the witness to the assessee, for cross examination, can arise. 28. Clearly, if this procedure, which is statutorily prescribed by plenary Parliamentary legislation, is not followed, it has to be regarded, that the Revenue has given up the said witnesses, so that the reliance by the CCE, on the said statements, has to be regarded as misguided, and the said statements have to be eschewed from consideration, as they would not be relevant for proving the truth of the contents thereof. 29. Reliance may also usefully be placed on para 16 of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in C.C.E. V Parmarth Iron Pvt Ltd, 2010 (250) ELT 514 (All), which, too, unequivocally expound the law thus: "If the Revenue choose (sic chose?) not to examine any witnesses in adjudication, their statements cannot be considered as evidence." 30. That adjudicating authorities are bound by the general principles of evidence, stands affirmed in the judgement of the Supreme Court in C.C. V Bussa Overseas Properties Ltd, 2007(216) ELT 659 (SC), which upheld the decision of the Tribunal in Bussa Overseas Properties Ltd v C.C., 2001 (137) ELT 637 (T). 31. It is clear, from a reading ....