TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the dealers. The Show Cause Notice issued on 30.11.2007 alleges the drawing of mahazar vide various annexures on different dates, it also talks of a hard disk recovered at the office premises of the appellant, printout of the same was taken of about 167 pages, mahazar proceedings at DGCEI office vide annexure-A8 drawn, similarly floppy disk recovered. There is also mention about recording of statements of various persons like Directors, Managing director, Shri P. Rakesh Jain, Shri Uttam Chand Surana, Proprietor of Surana Tyres, Statement of Shri M. Raja, Branch Manager, Sri Dhanalakshmi, Lorry Services, Shri Mahendra Giridharilal Agrawal, Proprietor, M/s. Jitendra Tyre House, Shri Vijay Kumar, Proprietor, M/s. Kalpaka Rubbers, Shri S. Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly increased from fifty to sixty thousand rupees to rupees one lakh and fifty thousand from which the Revenue has concluded that the appellant had produced more tyres and removed the same without payment of duty by suppressing the actual production; • Evidence of printouts recovered from the hard disk and floppy disk; • Balance sheet of the appellant wherein it is alleged that there was a huge difference when compared with that of the dealers, transporters, raw material suppliers, etc.; • The evidence of actual sale figure submitted with the bank but failing to raise invoice in order to remain in the SSI exemption limit; • Various documents including invoices of the same number used for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e through the order relied on during the course of the arguments. The primary contention of the assessee is the denial of cross-examination of the dealers whose statements were made use by the Revenue in order to fasten the duty liability. Ld. Advocate's other contention is the non-compliance with the requirement of Section 36 B of the Central Excise Act when the Revenue has relied on the extracts/printouts of the floppy disk and hard disk. He also contended that the Revenue has nowhere obtained a certificate in terms of Clause-4 to Section 36 B and in this regard, relied on the order of the New Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Popular Paints and Chemicals Vs. CCE, Raipur- 2018 (8) TMI-473 -(CESTAT-New Delhi). 5.2 Undoubte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als nor is there any evidence or even reference to entry of vehicles/trucks into the factory premises for loading of goods thereon, security gate records, statement of lorry drivers, etc., and therefore, the other evidences are also of no weightage to conclusively hold that there is clandestine activities. 5.4 The only other aspect left is the evidentiary value of un-corroborated statements of dealers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled this issue, in the case of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II reported in 2015 (324) ELT 641 (S.C.). It is the settled position therefore that a statement which is sought to be used against a person shall be given to the person against whom it is being used, ....