AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all the units are managed by Shri Naushad Ahmed and partners and that all the firms are commonly known as M/s. A.K. Group Firms. It appeared to the Department that these four groups have been clearing their goods to the customers/dealers under the cover of invoices which are raised from their factories and the invoices showed only a part of selling prices of the goods cleared. 2. It was alleged that the actual prices used to be circulated or informed to the customers separately; the value/prices shown in the invoices were only 50% of the actual price and amounts over and above the bill were normally paid by the customers in cash to the representative of the firms. The Department, inter alia, relied upon the following: (i) E-mail message dated 12.11.2002 supposed to be sent by One Shri Manilal P. Suther, Partner of M/s. Vishnu Sales to M/s. A. K. Group firms which reads as under: "Now keep the above mentioned material ready, I am sending you the total amount mentioned above. As talked to you over phone I want at least 50% to 65% bill and now give me the details on which name I should send the DD." (ii) A handwritten slip recovered from the premises of M/s. Plywood Associates....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Remanded to Original Authority (No appeal is filed) Mr. Nazeem Ahmed Rs.2,00,000/- (No appeal is filed) Mr. Niyam Ahmed Rs.2,00,000/- SCN 47/05-06 OIO No.35/2006 dt.11.12.2006 OIA No.176/2007 dt.4.4.2007 3 E/592/2009 A.K. Boards & Doors Rs.28,10,357/- Rs.28,10,357/- u/s 11AC Rs.10,00,000/- u/R 25 Rs.6,61,769/- Rs.6,61,7 69/- 4 E/593/2009 Mr. Niyaz Ahmed Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.50,00 0/- 5 E/594/2009 Mr. Seeliya Simmith Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.50,00 0/- SCN 47/05-06 OIO No.10/2007 dt.28.2.007 OIA No.99/2009 dt.18.3.2009 6 E/595/2009 A.K. Panels Rs.31,42,477/- Rs.31,42,477/- u/s 11AC Rs.12,00,000/- u/R 25 Rs.3,88,500/- Rs.3,88,5 00/- 7 E/596/2009 Mr. Niyaz Ahmed Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.25,00 0/- 8 E/597/2009 Mr. Naushad Ahmed Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.25,00 0/- SCN 46/05-06 OIO No.11/2007 dt.28.02.2007 OIA No.100/2009 dt.18.3.2009 2.2 In all, there are eigh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014 (305) ELT 480 (Guj.) * Jaybee Industries vs. CCE: 2004 (168) ELT 316 (Tri.-Del.) * Kedarnath Silks Mills vs. CCE: 2006 (195) ELT 58 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. The learned DR has reiterated the findings in Orders-in- Original and Orders-in-Appeal and stated that learned Commissioner (A) has addressed all the concerns expressed by the appellants and the case laws quoted by them has been duly differentiated. The learned Commissioner (A) has given a fair order and has confirmed the demands only to the extent of particular evidence being available. It can be seen that the Commissioner (A) has given a clear finding that "By following the Order-in-Appeal already passed by my predecessors and by following my above findings and by following the principles laid down by various decisions cited above, I hold that Department's quantification of evasion on the basis of evidence available on record is required to be restricted with reference to actual evidence available and cannot be extended to those transactions which relates to other dealers/customers where no evidence is available." 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The brief issues to be decided in these cases are: (i) Whether th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Rule 25 holding that an equivalent penalty has already been imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CCE vs. Banswara Syntex Ltd.: 2007 (212) ELT 171 (Raj.). He has reduced the penalties on the partners and however, did not agree with the appellant's contention that no separate penalty is imposable on the partners in view of the cases cited by them in their defence. The learned Commissioner (A) held that the persons had a definitive role in the clear case of undervaluation with an intention to evade payment of duty and held that the partners of the firm were involved in day-to-day management of the unit. We find that the learned Commissioner (A) has remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority in respect of M/s. A.K. Wood Industries (E/491/2007) and M/s. Nafeesa Frameworks (E/493/2007) with similar directions and the cases are reported to be pending before the adjudicating authority. 5.2 Therefore, we find that the Commissioner (A) has taken a fairly judicious view of the case of the appellant and has given directions to restrict the duty liability to the extent of documents, st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corded are all under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. The Central Excise officers are not police officers and the statements recorded by them are valid evidence. Moreover the statements find corroboration in the documents recovered by the authorities. In the absence of retraction or allegation of coercion to give an involuntary statement, we were inclined to accept their initial statements as voluntary and valid evidence." We find that the in the case cited above, the ingredients of the present issue are found, therefore, we find it to be squarely applicable. The only point that remains is that instead of a generalization, quantification of duty evasion needs to be restricted to the only evidence available or made available in respect of the transactions entered into by the appellants. That having been done, we have no doubt that the issue answers the first question raised above in the affirmative. 6. Coming to the issue of reliability of statements, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses have retracted the statements during the cross-examination and in some cases, the adjudicating authority has posed some general questions to the witnesses. The re....