TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as well as that of the successor entity and of other manufacturers, are concerned with this dispute. The case against the appellant is that they had been surreptitiously clearing 'automotive paints/coats' under the brand name 'SUNLAC', manufactured by the appellant which was being sold under the invoices of M/s Spraylac. At the time, however, of carrying out investigations, though the documents pertaining to M/s Sunshine Corporation was not available, stock of goods, under the same brand, manufactured by M/s Sunshine Paints, was found at the premises of the trader even though the records did not indicate any substantial transactions between the manufacturing entity and the trading entity. Relying on an affidavit filed before the competent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. 4. It is also contended that the alleged clandestine clearance is improbable as the production capacity of 126 MTs per year would then be surpassed. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel that the cross-examination of those whose statements are relied upon, though sought, was dismissed as a dilatory tactic. 5. Learned Authorised Representative, while admitting that the documents pertaining to production are unavailable, claims that confirmation of demand is not impacted by this deficiency as the statements that were relied upon in the adjudication order were never retracted. It is contended that the corroborative evidence obtained from the pen drives and computers of the appellant, admitted to contain correct records, sufficed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the certified details submitted by them should not be ignored. Furthermore, the decision of the Tribunal in Arya Fibres Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - II [2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri.-Ahmd)], placing emphasis on the necessity of cross-examination after calling to mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Co v. The Workmen [1971 SCC (2) 617], in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise [2000 (122) ELT 641 (SC)] and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Basudev Garg v. Commissioner of Customs [2013 (294) ELT 353 (Del.)], was also cited. 7. The lack of any evidence pertaining to procurement of excessive raw material, or of shipment of finished goods, to the trading u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for wha....