TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble for small scale unit was made out and a show cause notice was issued which culminated in the order confirming demand of Rs. 8,99,671/- with equal amount of penalty and interest and also imposition of penalty on various other parties involved. The appellants are against the confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty on the firm as well as the individuals, who are before us. The appellants have submitted a written submission and have requested to decide the case on the basis of the written submission. Shri D.S. Negi, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and has reiterated the points in support of the case as in the adjudication order/order-in-appeal. 2. In the written submission, the appellants have raised the foll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice was not observed since the extension of time to file reply was not given. Cross-examination was not made available to them. We find that show cause notice was issued on 8-9-2003 and the appellants admittedly submitted letters on 6-10-2003, 22-10-2003 and 23-2-2004 requesting for additional time to submit their reply. However, in the paper books, submitted by the appellants only letter dated 23-3-2004 is available which is in reply to the letter requiring them to appear for personal hearing and in this letter, they have asked for 22 to 25 days time to file their defence reply. Subsequently, they have written another letter to the adjudicating authority on 10-3-2004 stating that their consultant has been advised bed rest due to his i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and contended that confessional statement was obtained under threat and pressure and Rule 26 does not apply in their case as they did not deal with any excisable goods. We find that even though penalties were imposed on the traders who had issued bills/invoices without supplying goods, none of them has chosen to file appeal against the order imposing penalties. Therefore, it has to be concluded that they were involved in transaction and by not allowing cross-examination of these persons, no damage has been caused to the defence of the appellant. The appellants had sought cross-examination of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Mumbai but in the absence of any specific explanation for request for cross-examination and panchas, it has to be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red at any stage by any of the appellants as to how/why purchases were made from the fictitious firms. It is to be noted that retractions have been made only after issue of show cause notice and at the time of reply to show cause notice, no evidence of threat or pressure have been shown. The Apex Court in the following cases has held that such retractions have no value: (i) Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 38 (S.C.) (ii) Ekramuddin v. Collector - 2003 (155) E.L.T. A244 (S.C.) (iii) Commissioner v. K. Manickam - 2001 (128) E.L.T. A66 (S.C.). 5. As regards the Lamxmi Tex Chem and Laxmi Chemicals being separate entities it has not been denied that in fact, the department's case is that Laxmi Chemicals used to sell t....