TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sh. G M Solanki is abated. 2.1 Ld. Counsel further pointed out that a case of clandestine clearance was booked against the appellant after a search was made in the appellants premises. During the search a diary was recovered. The said diary was alleged contained record of the clandestine production for the period 11.12.2001 to 31.12.2001 and clearance for the period 03.12.2001 to 12.12.2001. The illicit production recorded in the said documents worked out to 17005 KG and the illicit clearances were 6353 Kgs. The diary recovered from the premises was admitted by the Director in his statement. The said diary was not challenged in the original adjudication proceedings also. The demand of SCN did not allow the benefit of Notification No. 3/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paid yarn and benefit of Notification 3/2001 should be extended. In support of this argument he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Decent Dyeing Co. 1990 (45) ELT 201 (SC). 3. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. He pointed out that the statements of buyers were recorded during 09.09.2002 to 12.09.2002 who accepted that receipt of the clandestinely cleared goods. The said buyers claimed that they had returned the goods. The said returned goods were then sold by the appellant to other six buyers out of which four could not been traced. The statement of such buyers was recorded who admitted, in their statement dated 03.10.2002 that they had received the clandestinely cleared goods. He argued that in these circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested; (b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence.] In the instant case the diary was recovered from the premises of the appellant and therefore unless contrary is proved by the appellant themselves, the said diary is an admissible evidence. Since no evidence to the contrary has been produced by the appellant, the diary can be relied as an admissible evidence. 4.1 The next issue relates to the quantification. A summary of the diary is recorded in para 24 and 25 of the SCN. The said data is as follows: The appellants have sought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table; and (b) from so much of the Special duty of excise leviable thereon under the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table, Subject to the relevant conditions specified in the Annexure to this notification, and referred to in the corresponding entry in column (6) of the said Table; Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification, the rates specified in columns (4) and (5) of the said Table are ad valorem rates, unless otherwise specified:- Table S. No. Chapter or heading ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of Decent Dyeing Co. (supra) the said goods should be treated as duty paid goods and therefore they are entitled to benefit of Notification 3/2001. In the instant case it is seen that the appellant were asked to produce the purchase bills, invoices of the said textured of draw twisted yearn purchased by them. The appellants have failed to do so. It is seen that the decision in the case of Decent Dyeing (supra) applies to the goods purchased from the market. In that regard, the appellant have failed to produce any evidence that they have purchased the goods from the market and not obtained the same without invoices cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. The goods in the market are deemed to be duty paid because they are in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of knowledge and has imported into the proviso a new period of limitation of six months from the date of knowledge. The reasoning appears to be that once knowledge has been acquired by the department there is no suppression and as such the ordinary statutory period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 11A would be applicable. However such reasoning appears to be fallacious inasmuch as once the suppression is admitted, merely because the department acquires knowledge of the irregularities the suppression would not be obliterated." 5. In view of the above, the benefit of limitation cannot be extended to the appellant. 6. As dictated above, the impugned order, is therefore, upheld. The appeal of M/s Vanita Texturiser....