TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in terms of Section 11A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. I appropriate the amount of Rs. 8,25,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only), already paid, during investigation, in terms of Section 11A(2) ibid. 3. I order for charging the interest at appropriate rate under Section 11AB ibid. 4. I impose equal penalty of Rs. 56 69 5651/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred & Sixty Five Only) in terms of Section 11 AC ibid for the contravention of various provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002, stated hereinabove. However, the penalty may be reduced to the extent of 25% of the amount of penalty imposed in terms of first proviso to Section 11AC ibid, subject to the payment of duty and applicable interest within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, if the 25% penalty amount is also paid within 30 days. 5. I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) each on Shri Suresh Mittal & Shri Satyanarayan R. Agarwal, both directors of M/s. ISSPL, and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each on Shri Vijay Kumar Jindal, Shri Vijay Kumar Mahavir Prasad Mittal and Shri Ajay Kumar Baheti, all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that Appellant 1 was actively engaged in surreptitious removal of M. S. Ingots manufactured at their factory to Appellant 2, and during the period July 2006 to Dec'2006, had clandestinely manufactured and cleared 1782.425 M.T. of M. S. Ingots valued at Rs. 3,47,33,855/- to M/s. SSIPL, which attracted Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 56,68,565/- Rs. 55,57,417/- B.E.D. + Rs. 1.11.148/- Edu. Cess. 2.5 A show cause cum demand notice dated 26.11.2008 was issued to Appellant 2 by the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Zonal Unit, Mumbai,- • proposing a recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 56,68,565/- (Rs. 55,57,4177- B.E.D. + Rs. 1,11,148/- Edu. Cess] towards clearances of M.S. Ingots during the period July 2006 to Dec'2006, in terms of proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking the extended period of limitation, as the entire activities were kept concealed and surreptitious with an intent to evade the payment of substantial amount of duty. • appropriation of Rs. 8,25,000/- deposited during investigation by the Appellant 1, towards demand of Central Excise duty. • for charging the intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asar Ispat Pvt. Ltd were duly retracted. • The department has not recorded the statement of any of the supplier of raw materials. • There is no recovery of any incriminating evidence either from any of the brokers named in the Show Cause Notice or the Appellant 1. The entire allegation is based on the forced statement of Shri Suresh Mittal, Director of the Appellant dated 23.01.2007 which was retracted on 24.01.2007 and 31.05.2007 which was retracted on 01.06.2007 and the statement of Shri. Satyanarayan Agarwal, Director of the Appellant dated 31.05.2007 which was retracted on 01.06.2007. • The Appellant was forced to make part payment The copy of the Challan is annexed at page 167 of Appeal Memo. • The department has relied upon the statement of broker Shri. Vijay Kumar Jindal (Appellant 5), Vijay Mahavir Mittal (Appellant 6) and Ajay Kumar Baheti (Appellant 7) who had allegedly brokered the transaction pertaining to sale of M.S. Ingots clandestinely to Appellant 2. The Appellant sought cross examination of the said brokers in their reply dated 04.08.2009 to the Show Cause Notice. Out of three brokers only Mr. Ajay Kumar Baheti a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covering the same period is totally illegal and unsustainable. It is settled law that two separate adjudications on the same issue for the same period though on different ground is not sustainable in law. • In so far as the role of Appellant 3 and Appellant 4 directors of Appellant 1 are concerned it is submitted that the directors has not violated any of the provision of Central Excise Act or Rules so as to impose penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rule 2002. There is no evidence put forth for in Show Cause Notice which justify the confirmation of penalty against directors of Appellant in as much as there has been no clandestine removal from Unit and it has not also been brought out in Show Cause Notice as to what role was played by them wherein he has reasonable belief that such excisable goods would be liable for confiscation under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule 2002 so as to invoke provision under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. • In so far as Appellant 4 is concerned he has expired and as such no penalty can be imposed upon him. • He relies on the following decisions in support of the arguments made. S No Judgment Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous MS Ingots manufacturers to M/s Shri Salasar ispat Pvt. Ltd. (SSIPL). The Cash book (sr.no.26) showed details of receipt and payment in cash by SSIPL. It was found that 1762.425 MT of MS Ingots were manufactured and cleared without C. Ex. duty payment by M/S ISSPL to M/s SSIPL. • In his statements recorded under Section 14, Shri Parvesh Gautam Director of Appellant 2 stated,- • On 18/12/2006 - that they were purchasing the inputs for their final product CRT Bars etc. viz. Ingots through brokers as well as directly from Appellant 1 and he also gave the names of the brokers (at pg.830 of Appellants' Compilation) and that the entries were written by him and his father only. He admitted in answer to question 6 (page 833 of Appellants' Compilation) that some of the transactions pertaining to sale and purchase were not reflected in their books of account of the said concern. (para 3.3.1 of Annexure of the SCN) • On 2/1/2007 - He admitted that the purchases from Silvar Ispat, Bhavaskti and Appellant 2 were through brokers as well as directly. He had gone through record no 23 and he admitted the entries therein. He requested that his statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Appellants' Compilation). As per the chart, there were around 84 consignments of Ingots cleared by Appellant 1 to Appellant 2 without C. Ex. invoices. (para 5.5.1 of Annexure l of the SCN) (pg. 918-919 of compilation) • dated 17/1/2007 he admitted that the consignments shown in the annexure were cleared without any bill and that he first enquired with the plants manufacturing MS Ingots about availability of MS Ingots and rate for "with bill" and "without bill' consignments and thereafter enquiries were made with rolling mills, thereafter the concerned plant directly sent the material to the Rolling mills without payment of C. Ex. duty, that he used to send his person to the Rolling Mills office for collecting the cash against 'without bills' deliveries. He gave all the details for 'without bill transactions (para 5.5.2 of Annexure l of the SCN). These consignments are reflected in Annexure II to SCN. • Appellant 6, on 10/1/2007 (page 933-936 of Appellants' compilation) gave his statement in Hindi and admitted that 8 consignments of MS Ingots from Appellant 1 without C.Ex. invoices sold by him to Appellant 2. (para 5.5 of Annexure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een made in the annexure I to SCN. Date Quantity Seized record no./page Page no. of Appellants' Compilation 15.11.06 9,700 23/163 650 15.11.06 9,810 23/163 650 20.11.06 15,450 23/163 650 22.11.06 13,875 23/170 654 22.11.06 9,780 23/170 654 24.11.06 9,130 23/170 654 30.11.06 14,720 24/21 665 30.11.06 9,650 24/21 665 03.12.06 9,275 24/21 665 06.12.06 12,030 24/25 667 06.12.06 15,065 24/25 667 15.12.06 12,970 24/25 667 15.12.06 12,535 24/25 667 15.12.06 9,640 24/25 667 15.12.06 9,870 24/25 667 • In his cross examination of Appellant 7, admitted that no excise invoices carrying the consignments were routed through him. That he cannot comment whether the consignments were duty paid or without duty paid. Since, he admitted the consignments shown in the records were cleared from Appellant 1, it is their duty to show the evidence that the said consignments were duty paid. He also said that whatever he stated in the statements was true (para 3 of OIO - internal page 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... E.L.T. 244 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (para 17.2) • Vaibhav Exports [2009 (244) E.L.T. 527 (Bom.)] (para 12) • Sanjay Shah [2011 (254) ELT 211 (Mad)] (para 8- 11) • Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. [(1987 (28) E.L.T. 507 (Tribunal)] (para 13) • Indian Strips [2004 (173) E.L.T. 265 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (para 24) • Anjani Kumar Shah [(2002 (147) E.L.T. 890 (Tri. - Del.)] (para 8.1) • Debes Industries [(1994 (71) E.L.T. 943 (Tribunal)] (para 8) • Somani Ferro Alloys Ltd. [(1990 (47) E.L.T. 445 (Tribunal)] (para 5) • Harssha Tea (India) Ltd. [2006 (204) E.L.T. 622 (Tri. - Chennai)] (para 2) • Saraf Silicates [1999 (112) E.L.T. 674 (Tribunal)] (para 4,5) • Phoenix Mills Ltd. [ 2004 (168) E.L.T. 310 (Bom.)] (para 16) • Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001 in Appeal (crl.) 453 of 1991 (Last para on page 3) • On the issue that the demand is covered by earlier show cause notice and there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orated looking to the need and requirement of a given case :- (a) It should always be kept in mind that nothing should be written in the judgment/order, which may not be germane to the facts of the case; It should have a co-relation with the applicable law and facts. The ratio decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/order. (b) After preparing the draft, it is necessary to go through the same to find out, if anything, essential to be mentioned, has escaped discussion. (c) The ultimate finished judgment/order should have sustained chronology, regard being had to the concept that it has readable, continued interest and one does not feel like parting or leaving it in the midway. To elaborate, it should have flow and perfect sequence of events, which would continue to generate interest in the reader. (d) Appropriate care should be taken not to load it with all legal knowledge on the subject as citation of too many judgments creates more confusion rather than clarity. The foremost requirement is that leading judgments should be mentioned and the evolution that has taken place ever since the same were pronounced and thereafter, latest ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es nor any stock verification etc undertaken at their premises showed any variation in stocks etc. b. The case has been made against them on the basis of the retracted statements of the Directors in company. c. The cross examination of two of the broker's was not undertaken and hence their statements cannot be relied upon, the broker who has been cross examined was unable to stand by his version in the statement. d. Some portion of demand overlaps with proceedings initiated against them by the earlier show cause notice issued to them relying on the electricity consumption report prepared by Dr N K Batra. 4.4 Commissioner has in the impugned order discussed the facts and evidences I relating to the case as follows: "5.2. Issue engulfed relates to clandestine manufacture & clearance of M. S. Ingots during the period July 2006 to Dec 2006 as alleged in the notice. To decide the case of clandestine manufacture and clearance, following vital ingredients / parameters require its proper examination and establishing the facts: 1) evidence relating to clandestine procurement of raw materials for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....well as the documents were destroyed after completion of the transaction. This admission came to fore when the clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots by M/s. ISSPL was detected on the discreet scrutiny of seized record no, 23, 24 & 26 recovered from the office premises of M/s. SSIPL at Mumbai. Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, another Director (M/S. ISSPL), in his statement dated 31.05.2007, also ratified the deposition of Shri Suresh Mittal, discussed earlier, relating to unaccounted procurement of M. S. Scrap. Since, both directors of the company had themselves confessed their offence, no question of existence of doubt arises here. 5.5.1. As regards to second point i.e. clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots manufactured by M/s. ISSPL through brokers namely Shri Vijay Kumar Jindal, Shri Vijay Kumar Mahavir Prasad Mittal and Shri Arun Kumar Baheti, I find that the Note Books containing entries of transactions and Note (Cash) Book comprising information relating to receipts & payments against transactions (seized record nos. 23, 24 & 26) were recovered from the office premises of M/s. SSIPL at Mumbai and the said private note books & cash book contained the entries specifying name of sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;, whatever was adopted to give the cover-up to the illicit transaction; that whenever they dispatched the materials (Ingots) to M/s. SSIPL without bills, one close confidant person from his side accompanied with the consignments carrying the Central Excise invoice and weighment slips and after its safe reach to the destination point, the said person brought back the same Central Excise invoice / weighment slips to the parent factory where the bills were destroyed. This methodology was meticulously postulated and adopted to get the hassle free and safe transit of the goods and to circumvent the departmental officers in transit, if consignments were intercepted in between 5.6. Relating to third point i.e. realization of the sale proceeds, all Ingot brokers named above and Shri Suresh Mittal and Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, both directors of M/s. ISSPL and Shri Pravesh Gautam, Director - M/s. SSIPL, had confessed in their respective statements that the payments were made in cash as soon as the transactions were over. Also, the seized record no. 26 recovered from Mumbai office premises and the seized record no. 1 & 2 retrieved from the possession of Shri Faruk Shaikh, Broker,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in these proceedings, is an offence punishable under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Having understood my responsibility hereunder I give my true & correct statement. My name, age and residential address are correctly stated above. My telephone numbers are, Mobile: 9371340418, Office: 02551-240418 19, Fax- 02551-240377, I am Director in M/s. Ishu Super Steel Pvt. Ltd. located at: D-5/D-6, STICE, Musalgaon, Shirdi Road, Sinnar, Nashik, having its registered office located at same address. The name of the other Directors are Shri Suresh Agarwal, Shri Suresh Mitttal and Shri Mohit Sarlia. This company is engaged in the manufacturing of Iron and Steel articles namely M.S. Ingots. The raw material used for the manufacture of M.S: Ingots is M.S. Scrap and Sponge Iron. We procure M.S.Scrap form local scrap merchant and Sponge Iron is procured mainly from Raipur and Bellari. I have now been shown the statement dated 23.01.2007, of Shri Suresh Mittal, one of the Directors of M/s. Ishu Super Steel Pvt. Ltd. recorded by the officers of the DGCEI. I have put my dated signature on the aforesaid statement in token of having seen and read the same. In this regard I state that all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded under the provisions of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Shri. R. S. Khetan, Sr. Intelligence Officer, DGCEI, Zonal Unit, Mumbai on 23.01.2007. In response to your summons dated 23.01.2007, I appear before you to tender my true and correct statement. I have been explained the provisions of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 whereby the above inquiry is deemed to be a "judicial proceeding' within the meaning of section 193 and 228 Indian Penal Code, according to which intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence, for the purpose of being used in these proceedings, is an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and intentionally offering. insult, or causing any interruption to the Officer sitting in these proceedings, is an offence punishable under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Having understood my responsibility hereunder I give my true & correct statement. My name, age and residential address are correctly stated above. My telephone numbers are, Mobile: 9324232100, Res: 32568499. I am director of M/s. Ishu Super Steel Pvt. Ltd., located at: Plot No. D-5, Stice, Musalgaon, Tal, Sinnar, Dist. N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng mill and there after torn off without recording in the books of accounts. On being asked to produce such parallel invoices and the book from which the same are issued, 1, state that we have already destroyed all such parallel invoices and the books. I further state that such clearances are not recorded in our books of accounts. Neither the corresponding quantity of raw material is recorded in the books of accounts, nor, the production, intended to be cleared without payment of Central Excise Duty is recorded. On being asked about the rates quoted for with bill consignments and without bill' consignments, I state that with bill! rates are quoted as basic rate plus Excise duty plus Sales Tax and without bill' rates are quoted as around Rs. 1500 to Rs. 2000 more than the basic rate. Thus, in without bill' sale, the Central Excise Duty and sales tax quantum is shared by us and the rolling mill. On being asked to produce the details of such "without bill clearances from your factory, I state that the details are kept on a piece of paper which is torn off after the deal is complete and the payment is received in cash from the rolling mill or the broker. I do not have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jay Baheti, broker of Iron & Steel products, recorded by the officers of DGCE, Zonal Unit, Mumbai on 22.01.2007. After carefully going through all the statements, I have put my dated signature on the same in token of having seen and read the same. In this regard, I state that I fully agree with all the facts stated therein with regard to M/S Ishu Super Pvt. Ltd., Nasik. Now, I have been shown the statement of Shri Jaiprakash Mittal, recorded by the officers of DGCEI, Zonal Unit, Mumbai on 16.01.2007. After carefully going through the statement, I have put my dated signature on the same in token of having seen and read the same. In this regard, I state that Shri Jaiprakash Mittal is the nephew of Shri Satbir Sarlia who had also dealt in with the rolling mills for sale of M.S. Ingots of M/s Ishu Super Pvt. Ltd., Nasik. I fully agree with all the facts stated therein with regard to M/s Ishu Super Pvt. Ltd., Nasik. Now, I have been shown the page nos. 07, 16, 21, 34, 44, 48, 54, 59, 64, 65, 74, 87, 96, 97, 103, 114, 121, 142, 153, 163, 167, 170, and 172 of record no. 23 and the page nos. 21, 25, and 38 of record no. 24 seized from the office premises of M/s Shri Salasar Ispat Pvt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise duty. The chart marked as Annexure- II pertain to those part consignments mentioned above wherein clearances have taken place under cover of Central Excise invoice on payment of Central Excise duty. On being asked I have to state that in case of the without bill transactions, the broker is responsible for collecting the cash from Shri Pravesh Gautam, Director of M/s Shri Salasar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and remitting to us or our nominated person. The brokerage is deducted from the cash payments accruing to us by the brokers themselves. I confirm that in all the transactions depicted in Annexure-I, cash payments have been collected by the brokers concerned from M/s Shri Salasar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. for payment to us. On having been pointed out by your office, I undertake to pay the Central Excise Duty against the above mentioned consignments of M.S. Ingots cleared by M/s Ishu Super Pvt. Ltd. without payment of Central Excise Duty due thereon shortly. I have nothing more to say at present. The above statement has been typed as dictated by me. After having gone through the above statement I confirm that the same has been typed correctly. The above statement is given by me voluntaril....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 23/97 03.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.755 21000 204855 32777 656 33433 04.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 24.485 20400 499494 79919 1598 81517 04.10.06 1325000.00 23/103 09.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 25.765 20400 525606 84097 1682 85779 09.10.06 1055000.00 23/114 09.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.750 20400 198900 31824 636 32460 11.10.06 400000.00 23/114 11.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 14.965 20400 305286 48846 977 49823 11.10.06 577300.00 23/114 12.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.540 20400 194616 31139 623 31762 23/114 12.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 14.995 20400 305898 48944 979 49923 23/114 08.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 13.190 20500 270395 43263 865 44128 08.11.06 100000.00 23/153 12.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 13.510 20400 275604 44097 882 44979 13.11.06 800000.00 23/153 12.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 13.175 20400 268770 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 49758 995 50753 23/142 31.10.06 Ishu Super J P Mittal 9.640 20500 197620 31619 632 32251 23/142 15.11.06 Ishu Super I.addhaji 9.700 20200 195940 31350 627 31977 18.11.06 300000.00 23/163 15.11.06 Ishu Super I.addhaji 9.810 20200 198162 31706 634 32340 20.11.06 500000.00 23/163 20.11.06 Ishu Super I.addhaji 15.450 20200 312090 49934 999 50933 23/163 22.11.06 Ishu Super I.addhaji 13.875 20300 281663 45066 901 45967 27.11.06 400000.00 23/170 22.11.06 Ishu Super I.addhaji 9.780 20300 198534 31765 635 32400 28.11.06 221000.00 23/170 24.11.06 Ishu Super I.addhaji 9.130 20300 185339 29654 593 30247 02.12.06 357500.00 23/170 30.11.06 Ishu Super I.addhaji 14.720 20400 300288 48046 961 49007 04.12.06 600000.00 24/21 05.12.06 Ishu Super I.addhaji 9.650 20400 196860 31498 630 32128 05.12.06 100000.00 24/21 06.12.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dal 9.820 18650 183143 29303 586 29889 10.07.06 600000.00 23/7 07.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.660 18650 180159 28825 577 29402 11.07.06 750000.00 23/7 16.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.660 18200 175812 28130 563 28693 19.07.06 697000.00 23/21 19.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.685 18200 176267 28203 564 28767 25.07.06 950000.00 23/21 19.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.535 18200 173537 27766 555 28321 26.07.06 500000.00 23/21 19.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.810 18200 178542 28567 571 29138 22.07.06 600000.00 23/21 20.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.385 18200 170807 27329 547 27876 23/21 22.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.980 18200 181636 29062 581 29643 23/21 22.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.490 18200 172718 27635 553 28188 23/21 22.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.275 18200 168805 27009 540 27549....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.470 19000 179930 28789 576 29365 13.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.455 18700 176809 28289 566 28855 23/44 14.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.485 18700 177370 28379 568 28947 23/48 14.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.540 18700 178398 28544 571 29115 23/48 14.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.615 18700 179801 28768 575 29343 23/48 14.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.640 18700 180268 28843 577 29420 23/48 15.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.310 18700 174097 27856 557 28413 23/48 16.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.900 18700 185130 29621 592 30213 23/48 17.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.690 18700 181203 28992 580 29572 23/48 17.08.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.960 18700 186252 29800 596 303....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 179267 28683 574 29257 23/64 09.09.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.640 19850 191354 30617 612 31229 23/74 11.09.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 15.905 19850 315714 50514 1010 51524 23/74 11.09.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.400 19850 186590 29854 597 30451 23/74 09.12.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.510 19850 188774 30204 604 30808 23/74 09.12.08 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.780 19850 194133 31061 621 31682 23/74 09.09.08 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.710 19850 192744 30839 617 31456 23/74 09.09.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.645 19850 191453 30632 613 31245 23/74 13.09.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 8.555 19850 169817 27171 543 27714 23/74 14.09.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 8.935 19850 177360 28378 568 28946 23/74 15.09.06 Ishu ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 72421 1448 73869 20.07.06 620000.00 23/21 198/16.07.06 404 15.07.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 17.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.530 18200 173446 27751 555 28306 21.07.06 725000.00 23/21 204/17.07.06 412 16.07.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 17.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.655 18200 175721 28115 562 28677 22.07.06 1100000.00 23/21 205/18.07.06 411 16.07.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 18.07.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.450 18200 171990 27518 550 28068 24.07.06 521120.00 23/21 296/18.09.06 417 17.09.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 23.09.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.785 20225 197902 31664 633 32297 23.0906 800000.00 23/87 335/28.09.06 311 16.09.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 28.09.06 Ishu Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 02.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.700 20625 200063 32010 640 32650 23/97 349/02.10.06 656 03.10.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 11.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.710 20625 200269 32043 641 32684 23/97 359/04.10.06 666 03.10.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 15.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.885 21000 207585 33214 664 33878 06.11.06 147757.00 23/103 362/05.10.06 670 04.10.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 05.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.720 21000 204120 32659 653 33312 750.00 23/103 361/05.10.06 669 04.10.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 05.10.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.715 21000 204015 32645 653 33295 600000.00 23/103 363/05.10.06 671 04.10.06 Ishu ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.11.06 773 08.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 09.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 14.335 20500 293868 47019 940 47959 100000.00 23/153 408/08.11.06 772 08.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 12.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 16.570 20400 338028 54084 1082 55166 15.11.06 400000.00 23/153 412/10.11.06 774 10.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 13.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.590 20400 195636 31302 626 31928 15.11.06 164350.00 23/153 415/13.11.06 783 12.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 13.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.865 20400 201246 32199 644 32843 3135.00 23/153 416/13.11.06 785 13.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 14.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 11.945 20400 243678 38988 780 39768 12000.00 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5717 31315 626 31941 23/167 432/17.11.06 801 16.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 17.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.710 19900 193229 30917 618 31535 23/167 431/17.11.08 799 16.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 19.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 12.265 19900 244074 39052 781 39833 23/167 436/19.11.06 805 18.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 19.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.900 19900 197010 31522 630 32152 23/167 437/19.11.06 804 18.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 21.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 12.810 19900 254919 40787 816 41603 23/167 445/21.11.06 816 20.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 21.11.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.780 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el Pvt Ltd 28.11.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.675 20200 195435 31270 625 31895 23/172 464/28.11.06 840 27.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 28.11.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 9.725 20200 196445 31431 629 32060 23/172 465/28.11.06 841 27.11.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 02.12.06 Ishu Super Vijay Jindal 12.335 20200 249167 39867 797 40664 23/172 858 01.12.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 01.12.06 Ishu Super Laddhaj i 9.770 20400 199308 31889 638 32527 07.12.06 900000.00 24/21 01.12.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 02.12.06 Ishu Super Laddhaj i 9.595 20400 195738 31318 626 31944 09.12.06 900000.00 24/21 656 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 874 08.12.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 09.12.06 Ishu Super Laddhaj i 12.300 20200 248460 39754 795 40549 24/25 877 10.12.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 11.12.06 Ishu Super Laddhaj i 12.810 20200 258762 41402 828 42230 24/25 878 10.12.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 11.12.06 Ishu Super Laddhaj i 15.590 20200 314918 50387 1008 51395 24/25 883 14.12.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 16.12.06 Ishu Super Direct 9.340 20850 194739 31158 623 31781 24(38 884 15.12.06 Ishu Super Steel Pvt Ltd 881.210 17807009 28449118 56979 2906097 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am directly to Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal at our Nashik factory. I further state that as regards transportation of such without bill M.S. Ingots cleared to M/s Shri Salasar Ispat Pvt. Ltd., from our factory, I wish to state that it was always arranged by Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal. Now, I have been shown record no. 26 seized from the premises of M/s Shri Salasar ispat Pvt. Ltd. on 18.12.2006 under panchanama. After carefully going through all the entries in the said record, I have put my dated signature on the first and last page of the same in token of having seen the same. In this connection I wish to state that payments against without bill supplies of M. S. Ingots made by us to M/s Shri Salasar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. were received in cash by either our broker or by us. I confirm that the entries in the said record pertaining to payments made in cash to us or our brokers are correct and we have indeed received the payments on the given date in cash against our without bill supplies from Shri Pravesh Gautam or through our brokers. On being asked to explain the reasons for appearing our company's name on the receipts side of this seized record which a cash book, I state that we have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds without payment of duty. I deny all the allegation. Therefore, I request please do not rely on the my statement as it is the forced statement and not voluntary. They have not even checked checked our records before making allegation. Yours Faithfully ISHU SUPER STEEL PVT.LTD DIRECTOR Suresh Mittal (Director) ISHU SUPER STEEL PVT.LTD UNDER POSTAL CERTIFICATE TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE INTELLIGENCE 8, WEST BLOCK, WING NO.-6 R K PURAM, NEW DELHI FROM:- SURESH MITTAL (DIRECTOR) ISHU SUPER STEEL PVT.LTD PLOT NO. D-6, S.T.I.C.E.SINNAR NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA To, The Director General Central Excise & Customs 8, West Block R K Puram, New Delhi. Sir, Once again, I was called by officers of the DGCEI Bellard Estate Mumbai for recording and confirmation of the statement which already. I have denied by my retraction dt.23.01.2007. Although I have deposited Rs. 8.25 lacs under protest & as per directive of the officers, but the officers were making pressure for more payment to be made, I have denied them that the company is not in position to make payment, And ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Shri Suresh Mittal who admits and sign the same, and also signs the Annexures drawn from these diaries which related to clearances made by the appellants. 4.5.7 On the issue of retraction of statement Commissioner has observed as follows: "5.8. Now coming to the point of retraction to the statements recorded, I find that mere retraction of confession is not sufficient to make confessional statement irrelevant, as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki Vs.U.O.I. [2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.). The apex court further held that the court must bear in mind the attending circumstances, time of retraction, nature and manner of retraction and other relevant factors to arrive at a finding on voluntary nature of the statement or otherwise and if evidence brought by confession if retracted must be corroborated by other independent and cogent evidence. In this case, I find that the depositions were retracted at a later stage without bringing any contrary evidence to their confessions made earlier. Further, the manner of retraction also appears to ambiguous as Shri Suresh Mittal, Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal and Shri Parvesh Gautam didn't bring out any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made before the Customs officials is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore it is a material piece of evidence collected by Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act. That material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner in the contravention inasmuch as Mr. Dudani's statement clearly inculpates not only himself but also the petitioner. It can, therefore, be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore we do not think that there is any illegality in the order of confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting reduction of fine. 4.5.9 In case of Surjeet Singh Chabbra [1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC)] Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the Panch witnesses and the Seizing Officer for the goods seized in contravention of the FERA & Customs Duty Act and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tisfied from the evidence that it was voluntary, then it is required to examine whether the statement is true. If the Court on examination of the evidence finds that the retracted confession is true, that part of the inculpatory portion could be relied upon to base conviction. However, the prudence and practice require that Court would seek assurance getting corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution. 26. In Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.) = 1995 Supp. 4 SCC 663 a two-Judge Bench [to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member] had held in para 4 that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act forms a substantive evidence inculpating the petitioner therein with the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act as he had attempted to export foreign exchange out of India. The statement made by another person inculpating the petitioner therein could be used against him as substantive evidence. Of course, the proceedings therein were for confiscation of the contraband. In Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646, decided by a two-Judge Bench to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a membe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not stationed at the place of investigation/ recording of statement we are not inclined to agree with the appellants plea on retraction. Further it is interesting to note that when so ever the Appellant 3 & 4 visited the post office for posting their letter retracting their statement, they used the same postal stamps bearing the picture of "Dr B R Ambedkar" for posting these letters. Further no proof has been shown in respect of the delivery of such retraction letters to the addressee. In case the Appellant 3 & 4 were serious about retracting their statements they would have posted these letters by "Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due" so that the proof of delivery of the said letters to the addressee was available for production in subsequent proceedings. In view of the above we do not find much merits in the submissions made by the appellants counsel regarding retraction of statements. Even if for a moment it is accepted that the statements were retracted, then also they being substantial piece of evidence duly corroborated by other evidences brought forward during the investigation can be relied upon for proceeding against the appellants as have been held by the above re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Vijay Kumar Jindal, Shri Vijay Kumar Mahavir Prasad Mittal and Shri Ajay Kumar Baheti, all Ingot brokers, were allowed, but Shri Ajay Kumar Baheti, the lone witness, came forward for the proceedings, details of which are narrated below: Cross-examination of Shri Ajay Kumar Baheti, Ingot Broker, on 04.08.2009: On being questioned, Shri Ajay Kumar Baheti stated that he had transacted around 500 M.T. of M. S. Ingots for M/s. ISSPL; that he never raised any bill for payment; that no bills for payment were routed through him; that he didn't collect payments in all cases; that the payment routed through him was in cash; that no excise invoices carrying the consignments were routed through him; that no discussion relating to idea mooted by Shri Satbir Sarlia and Shri Pravesh Gautam for part supply without bills' and part supply with bills', had taken place before him; that he didn't deal directly with either of the Directors of M/s. ISSPL; that he cannot comment whether the consignments were cleared with bills or without bills. Elaborating further, he stated that he was dragged to this business by Shri Satbir Sarlia, who knew his father-in-law Shri Laddha, and acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the appellant. In fact one of the broker appeared for cross examination and was cross examined. It is also seen that during the cross examination, he specifically stated that what has been said by him earlier in his statement is correct. 4.6.4 It is also worth pointing, that the persons sought to be cross examined were the co-noticee in the proceedings before the Commissioner, and are now co-appellant's as Appellant 5, Appellant 6 & Appellant 7 in the appellate proceedings before us. 4.6.5 Delhi bench of CESTAT, has in case of Jagdish Shanker Trivedi [2006 () ELT 290 (T-Del)] has held as under, in case where the co-noticee were called for cross examination but they did not turn up held the same not to be violation of principle of natural justice, and observed as follows: "8. We may also, recall here, the decision of the Supreme Court in Jethmal Pithaji v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1524 (S.C.) = AIR 1974 SC 699 in which the Supreme Court held in paragraph 8 of the judgment that all the parts of a recorded statement of an accused are not entitled to equal credit. An inculpatory part of the statement could be accepted ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offences in connection with the contraband goods, they can bring about a situation of failure of natural justice by a joint strategic effort such co-noticees by each one refusing to be cross-examined by resorting to Article 20(3) of the Constitution and simultaneously claiming cross- examination of the other co-noticees. We, therefore, hold that the appellants, including the appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia were not entitled to claim cross-examination as a matter of right. The appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia had, in fact, cross- examined two official witnesses and at the end, he had only sought for time for further hearing. The cross-examination made by the appellant, Ashish Kumar Chaurasia of two officers, A.K. Chaturvedi and Simon has been set out in the impugned order and it is recorded that, "various dates of personal hearing was given one after the other but neither Ashish Kumar Chaurasia nor his advocate turned up". It is clear from the record that the appellants had been given adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter pursuant to the show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the said Act, and there has not been any violation of the principles of natural justice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss-examination does not appeal to us. If that was so, he would not have inquired from Shashikant who was present and who was required to remain present because of his matter being taken up on the very same day and undertaken an empty formality of getting a denial from Shri Shashikant. Non- permitting of cross-examination of Shashikant by the adjudicating authority clearly appears to be on account of refusal of Shashikant for being cross-examined by anybody. The adjudicating authority under these circumstances could not have compelled him to come as witness for purpose of cross- examination. The observations of the said adjudicating authority are in confirmation to the provisions of law." 4.6.9 Tribunal has in case of Mayamahal Industries [1995 (80) ELT 118 (T)]held as follows: 4. The appellant, it is true, had asked for cross-examination of Shri Balinder Singh Sachhar. The Additional Collector has recorded in her Order at page-9 that the appellant had been informed that since Shri Sachhar was himself a noticee, it would not be proper to summon him to give evidence. The reason for this although not stated in the Additional Collector's Order is evident, that it would not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Company. Since these statements were made to the Customs officers, the statements are out of the ambit of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act and are readily admissible into evidence. As it was held by three judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram reported in 1962 (3) SCR 338 where Court has gone to the extent of holding that the confessions made to the Customs officers if voluntarily made, can be the sole basis of the conviction. 8. Though the appellant have taken the plea that both the witnesses were compelled to give the initial statement of acknowledging the guilt but they had subsequently retracted. This controversy was cleared by Supreme Court Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1952 (S.C.) 214 holding that even if it is a retracted [confession], it must first be tested whether [confession] is voluntary and trivial inculpating the accused in the Commission of the crime, if affirmative findings, even retracted [confession] can be recorded. The Apex Court clarified that to prove that the statement was not voluntary and was obtained by threat or duress the burden lies upon the accused. We observe that there is nothing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t out of the material on which the Customs Authorities had relied and it was for the appellant to give a suitable explanation, persons who had given information should be examined in presence of the appellants or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. It was clarified that formal cross-examination was procedural justice and principles of natural justice did not require that there should be a kind of formal cross-examination. It was held that natural justice certainly includes that any statement of person before it is accepted against somebody else that the person should have an opportunity of meeting it whether by way of interrogation or by way of comments and assailing as the party charged as a firm and reasonable opportunity to see comment and criticisms. The evidence, statement or recorded on which the charge is being made against him the demands and test of natural justice are satisfied. This Tribunal in the case of Popular Carpet Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 244 has held that where a co-noticee did not agree to be examined he cannot be compelled to come as a witness for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a planned way and every possible efforts are taken (by accused) not to leave any evidence open to get its clue. Since activity is surreptitious itself, every chain of the link is not expected / desirable to be unfolded / proved. In such case, pre-ponderance of probability mechanism would come into play. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhanabhai Khalpabhai Vs. Collector of Customs (1994 (71) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] had held so. Further, in an identical case in respect of Lucky Dyeing Mills P. Ltd. Vs. CCE&C, Surat [2008 (222) E.L.T. 543 (TYI-Ahmd.), the Hon'ble Tribunal also held that the contention of corroborative evidence in the nature of procurement of raw material, electricity consumed etc. does not stand, inasmuch as the goods were sent without challan or documentary proof, payments were made in cash and delivery challans were torn, no evidence of any money transaction would be available being cash transaction - case sufficiently corroborated. In an another judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-II (2005 (184) E.L.T. 263 (Tri Bang.)], the court held that "n any type of clandestine activity, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g entries of transactions and One Note Book containing details of receipts & payments, recovered during the search of the office premises of M/s. SSIPL, located at New Darukhana, Mumbai on 18.12.2006), were not recovered from the office premises of M/s. SSIPL at Mumbai; on the contrary the said office premises belonged to M/s. Gautam Enterprises, whose proprietor is Shri Roshanlal Gautam (father of Shri Pravesh R. Gautam). This is absolutely an application of afterthought, as during the search of the said premises on 18.12.2006, Shri Pravesh R. Gautam was present there and has put his dated signature on the Search Warrant and panchnama, wherein, he categorically explained to the panchas (witnessing the panchnama proceedings) that the said premises is used as the office premises for M/s. SSIPL, M/s. Gautam Enterprises (his father Shri Roshanlal Gautam is the proprietor) and M/s. Shree Shiv Ganesh Parvati Steel (he himself is the proprietor). It is a fact that the contents of the said panchnama was never challenged. Therefore, now changing the stand is explicitly a case of an afterthought and with a view to deviate the investigation/ adjudication process. Therefore, the contention do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having very carefully considered the law laid down by this Tribunal in the matter of clandestine manufacture and clearance, and the submissions made before us, it is clear that the law is well-settled that, in cases of clandestine manufacture and clearances, certain fundamental criteria have to be established by Revenue which mainly are the following : (i) There should be tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance and not merely inferences or unwarranted assumptions; (ii) Evidence in support thereof should be of : (a) raw materials, in excess of that contained as per the statutory records; (b) instances of actual removal of unaccounted finished goods (not inferential or assumed) from the factory without payment of duty; (c) discovery of such finished goods outside the factory; (d) instances of sale of such goods to identified parties; (e) receipt of sale proceeds, whether by cheque or by cash, of such goods by the manufacturers or persons authorized by him; (f) use of electricity far in excess of what is necessary for manufacture of goods otherwise manufactured and validly cleared on payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince the learned Counsels on either side may not have had the opportunity of examining the decision in the light of the facts of the present case. Suffice it to say that the said decision has also tabulated the entire case-law, including most of the decisions cited before us now, considered them, and come to the above conclusion. In yet another decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal [Pan Parag India v. CCE, 2013 (291) E.L.T. 81], it has been held that the theory of preponderance of probability would be applicable only when there are strong evidences heading only to one and only one conclusion of clandestine activities. The said theory, cannot be adopted in cases of weak evidences of a doubtful nature. Where to manufacture huge quantities of final products the assessee require all the raw materials, there should be some evidence of huge quantities of raw materials being purchased. The demand was set aside in that case by this Tribunal." Even in this case tribunal holds that each case of clandestine removal needs to be examined on the facts of the case under consideration, and not on the basis of the decisions rendered in the case of some other person. If on the basis of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden. 32. Smuggling is clandestine conveying of goods to avoid legal duties. Secrecy and stealth being its covering guards, it is impossible for the Preventive Department to unravel every link of the process. Many facts relating to this illicit business remain in the special or peculiar knowledge of the person concerned in it. On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned : and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result prove him guilty. As pointed out by Best in `Law if Evidence' (12th Edn. Article 320, page 291), the "presumption of innocence is, no doubt, presumptio juris: but every day's practice shows that it may be successfully encountered by the presumption of guilt arising from the recent (unexplai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as travelling without a ticket; a prima facie case against him is proved. If he once had such a ticket and lost it, it will be for him to prove this fact within his special knowledge. Similarly, if a person is proved to be in recent possession of stolen goods, the prosecution will be deemed to have established the charge that he was either the thief or had received those stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. If his possession was innocent and lacked the requisite incriminating knowledge, then it will be for him to explain or establish those facts within his peculiar knowledge, failing which the prosecution will be entitled to take advantage of the presumption of fact arising against him, in discharging its burden of proof. 44. These fundamental principles, shorn of technicalities, as we have discussed earlier, apply only in a broad and pragmatic way to proceedings under Section 167(8) of the Act. The broad effect of the application of the basic principle underlying Section 106,. Evidence Act to cases under Section 167(8) of the Act, is that the Department would be deemed to have discharged its burden if it adduces only so much evidence, circumstantial or direct, as is su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned order as having wrongly placed the burden on the appellant. What the impugned order does is that it refers to the evidence on the record which militates against the version of the appellant and then states that the appellant had not been able to meet the inferences arising therefrom. In our opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the burden of proof had shifted on to the appellant after the Customs Authorities had informed appellant of the results of the enquiries and investigations. 14. This also disposes of the first point, as we have said, the burden was on the Customs Authorities which they discharged by falsifying in many particulars the story put forward by the appellant. 15. Coming to the fourth point, we are of the opinion that, except for certain items there is evidence in favour of the conclusion of the High Court. It cannot be disputed that a false denial could be relied on by the Customs Authorities for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the goods had been illegally imported. In Issardas Daulat Ram v. Union of India, (1962) Supp. 1 SCR 358 at p. 363 the credibility of the story about the purchase of gold from cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nothing has been brought on record to show that the demand made in present case based on the evidences and admissions/ confessions by the Director of Appellant 1, was covered under the earlier show cause notice. The earlier demand was based on certain studies conducted, and on the basis of electricity consumption was made. The demand was in nature of presumptive demand, and as per the submissions made by the appellant the appeal against the said order was dismissed not after consideration on merits but for the reason of non compliance with provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellants have also not placed on records any document evidencing such dismissal of the appeal filed by them. As far as we are aware tribunal has been deciding the appeals setting aside the demands made against the ingot manufacturers on the basis Shri N K Batra, report on electricity consumption [SRJ PEETY STEEL PVT. LTD [2015 (327) E.L.T. 737 (Tri. - Mumbai)], Sukh Sagar Metals (P) Ltd [2020 (372) E.L.T. 801 (Jhar)]]. In our view claim made by the appellant does not support their case either way. 4.9.1 On the issue of invocation of longer period of limitation for makin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of M. S. Ingots manufactured at M/s. ISSPL Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal had himself deposed that he had managed the transportation for delivery of Ingots without bills' in cash to M/s. SSIPL. Clearing the consignments without bills' and realizing the sale proceeds in cash by not accounting for the transactions in the books of accounts, is an economic offence, and for this act here, no person is standalone in the corrupt business and all they have their own prefixed specified role in a consolidated manner. They are the main protagonist of the entire exercise and stage managed the show, with an intention to evade the payment of duty and are the beneficiary of extraneous pecuniary gains. Without their consent, knowledge & direction, such unscrupulous activities would not take place. To conclude, said persons named above are equally responsible and were proactively indulged in managing the illegal show and thus rendered themselves liable for penal action. Case laws, cited hereinbelow, support this view: i) 2006 (202) E.L.T. 90 (Tri-Mum.) - Vishan Shamlal Milwani Vs. CCE, Abad ii) 2007 (212) E.L.T. 400 (Tri-Bang.) - Subhash Gupta Vs. CCE, Hyderabad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir involvement in activities of clandestine production and clearance by Appellant 1, we uphold the penalties imposed on them. 5.1 In view of discussions as above we do not find any merits in these appeals and dismiss the same. (Order pronounced in the open court on 15.11.2021) ============= Document 1 मेवा में डायरेकà¥à¤Ÿà¤° गरà¥à¤à¤¶à¤² सेनà¥à¤Ÿà¥à¤°à¤² à¤à¤•à¥à¤¸à¤¸à¤¾à¤‡à¤œ व कसà¥à¤Ÿà¤® 8, देस लाक मि. -6 - आर. के. पà¥à¤°à¤®, नà¥à¤¯à¥‚ दिलà¥à¤²à¥€ महोदय, मà¥à¤à¥‡ दिनाक क17 2007 को के लिये डी.सी.ई 1/6/2009 बयान दरà¥à¤ कले बेलाई किसॠमें आप....