TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hom the duty demand of Rs. 20, 07,924.04/- has been upheld under provisions of section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("Act") along with equal penalty under section 11AC(1)(c) of the Act and Mr. Gyansingh Sisodiya is the Director of the appellant upon whom penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (erstwhile Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944) has been upheld (referred to as "Appellants" herein after). 2. Briefly, the fact of the case are that M/s. JTL is engaged in the processing of cotton fabrics falling under chapter 52. On 18-8-2001, officers of central excise department during search, seized various records including a file containing delivery slips, based on which statements of some of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Commissioner (appeals) thereafter vide OIA dated 31-12-2008 again confirmed the duty demand maintaining the reduction of penalties. The appellants preferred appeal against the said OIA dated 31-12-2008 and this Tribunal vide Order No. A/11490-11493/2018 dated 25.07.2018 remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority interalia with a direction to examine the issue of examination of witnesses in terms of section 9D of the Act and in denovo proceedings the adjudicating authority vide OIO dated 18-03-2021 confirmed the duty demand along with penalty equivalent to duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- upon the Director of M/s. JTL without acceding the request of the appellants to grant cross-examination of the witnesses in terms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tering does not amount to manufacture, however, as though there was compulsion to confirm duty, he proceeded to confirm the duty on some other ground exterior to SCN that appellant was also carrying out other processes on fabrics falling under chapter 52 and of fabrics falling under chapter 54 & 55 of CETA, 1985 which amounted to manufacture; that while denying that M/s. JTL carried out Stentering on the hand dyed/bleached/screen printed fabrics received from M/s. Shrinathji textiles, particularly disputing the quantity of 11,12,820 L mts, he urged that even otherwise no duty can be demanded from M/s. JTL, as M/s. JTL was not the manufacturer of the fabrics in question, as per para 37 of the SCN, M/s. JTL merely allowed use of its Stenter t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods thereby has come into existence. Learned commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order has held that although stentering of fabrics falling under chapter 52 does not amount to manufacture, however, since M/s. JTL was also carrying out other finishing processes specified under chapter note 3 to chapter 52 and stentering process in respect of fabrics falling under chapter 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; M/s. JTL is yet liable to duty. 5.1 In this regard, it can be seen that learned commissioner (appeals) (at para 9.8 of the impugned order) has relied upon the statement dated 05.06.2002 of Mr. Kailash S. Jalan, power of attorney holder of M/s. Shreenathji Textiles, in which he has stated that M/s. JTL has carried out pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld by the authorities below, is not the exception provided under section 9D of the Act and therefore as laid down in the following judgments, their testimony has to be excluded from consideration: * Basudev Garg v. C.C. - 2013 (294) ELT 353 (Del.) * G-Tech Industries v. Union of India - 2016 (339) ELT 209 (P & H) It can be seen that excluding the statements, there is no evidence to show that the delivery slips were in respect of fabrics subjected to Stentering in the premises of M/s. JTL. Moreover, Yogesh Shah who is supposed to have written the delivery slips and who is supposed to have supervised, on behalf of M/s. Shrinathji Textiles, the process of stentering at the premise of M/s. JTL, has also not been examined in the investigat....