TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its manufacture 'Unmanufactured Branded Tobacco' and after packing the same in printed pouches bearing a brand name of 'Om Special Pandharpuri Tambakoo No. 1', were sold in the market. All the above four units discharged their Central Excise Duty liability on removal of the said products and also maintained statutory records and filed their statutory returns separately. Those units were also separately audited under the provisions of the Central Excise statute. Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel was a Power of Attorney Holder of two firms viz. (a) M/s Shree M.C. Patel & Sons, a proprietorship firm of his wife Smt. Kailashben M. Patel and (b) M/s Shree Krishna Traders, a partnership firm of his sons Shri Neeraj M. Patel and Shri Rahul M. Patel. Both these firms were engaged in manufacture and sale of 'Unbranded Unmanufactured Loose/Bulk Tobacco'. Both these firms were having their respective head offices at Khandali, Gujarat and were having shop at Kurla (W), Mumbai. As Unbranded Unmanufactured Tobacco did not attract any Central Excise Duty, both these firms were not registered with the Central Excise Department. The respective head office of Patel Product, Shree M.C. Patel & Sons and Shre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their own vehicles and delivery to outstation buyers were made through various transporters situated at Sakinaka, Mumbai. 2. During the course of searches conducted at the premises of the appellants as well in other places, the Central Excise officers have recorded statements of various persons. In his statement dated 10.06.2013, Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel, proprietor M/s Patel Product had stated that raw tobacco used for production of 'Om Special Pandharpuri Tambakoo No. 1' is Grade-I quality and raw tobacco which is used for retail/bulk sale from M/s Shree Krishna Traders and M/s Shree M.C. Patel & Sons is Grade-II and III quality tobacco. All these bulk tobaccos are purchased at Khandhali, Gujarat in respective firm's name and thereafter, those were stock transferred to Kurla (West), Mumbai through All India Road Transport Company, wherein each consignment consisted of 250 bags, each of 40 kgs. During the course of investigation, the department had alleged that at the time of stock transfer, from Khandhali to Kurla of Grade-II / III raw tobacco of M/s M.C. Patel & Sons, Kurla and M/s Shree Krishna Traders, instead of 250 bags of Grade-II and III quality, raw tobacco about 50 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s Jalaram Traders and M/s Shree Gajanan Agency were controlled by Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel and therefore, the price at which these two firms used to sell the said branded tobacco of M/s Patel Product in the open market, should be considered as assessable value, for the purpose of demanding Central Excise Duty from M/s Patel Product. On that basis, a demand of differential Central Excise Duty on account of under valuation during the period from June, 2008 to July, 2012 of Rs. 3,67,06,613/- was made. The total demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 34,78,85,175/- was proposed for recovery from M/s Patel Product, Unit-I-II-III-IV, jointly and severally. It had also proposed for imposition of personal penalty on (a) Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel, proprietor of M/s Patel Product [Unit-I-II-III-IV], (b) M/s Jalaram Traders, M/s Gajanan Agency, (c) Shri Arvindbhai N. Patel, proprietor/partner of M/s Jalaram Traders/ M/s Shree Gajanan Agency, (d) Shri Ashokbhai S. Patel, partner, M/s Shree Gajanan Agency, (e) Shree M.C. Patel & Sons, proprietor of Smt. Kailashben M. Patel, (f) M/s Shree Krishna Traders, (g) Shri Neeraj M. Patel, Partner, M/s Shree Krishna Traders (h) Shri Ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rked out on the basis of diversion of raw material i.e. superior grade of tobacco in guise of inferior grade of tobacco at the rate of 75 bags per trip from M/s Shree Krishna Traders, Khandali and M/s Shree M.C. Patel & Sons, Khandali to M/s Patel Product, Kurla. The SCN had also recorded that Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel, Proprietor of Patel Product was arrested on 13.06.2013 and was granted bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court. He appeared before the investigation on 17.06.2013, when his statement was recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act. It is also mentioned in the SCN that Mahendrabhai C. Patel had retracted his statement dated 17.06.2013 vide affidavit dated 18.06.2013 and had also submitted a copy of said affidavit before the investigation and in response thereto, rejoinder letter of even number dated 26.06.2013 was sent by the investigation to Mahendrabhai C. Patel. Likewise, the SCN had also recorded further statement of Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 on 20.06.2013. It is mentioned in the SCN that Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel, subsequently vide his affidavit dated 21.06.2013, had retracted his said statement dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne crore only) on Shri Mahendrabhai Patel, under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; (vii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on Shri Arvindbhai N. Patel, proprietor of M/s Jalaram Traders (Noticee No 6) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002; (viii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only)under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, on M/s Shree Gajanan Agency (Noticee No.7), which devolves on Shri Mahendrabhai Patel, the defacto owner of M/s Shree Gajanan Agency; (ix) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) on Shri Arvindbhai N Patel & Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) on Shri Ashokbhai S Patel, (Noticee No 8 & 9) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002; (x) I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) on Smt Kailashben M Patel, Proprietor, M/s. Shree M.C. Patel & Sons (Noticee No. 10), under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002; (xi) I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) on M/s. Shree Krishna Traders (Noticee No. 11), which devolves jointly and severally on Shri Neeraj M Patel & Shri Rahul M Patel, partners of M/s. Shree Krishna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Proprietor of M/s. Ekta Traders, (b) Md Anjum Abdul Gafar, Partner of M/s. Haya Traders, Mumbai, and (c) Md Javed Haji Yakub, Partner of M/s. Heena Enterprise, who have affirmed that the officers of Central Excise Department had visited them and tried to threaten them and obtain statements, but failed in their such action. M/s. Patel Products had requested the Adjudicating Authority to afford cross examination / examination-in-chief of: 1) Gulammiya Jamalmiya Sekh, Sandhana 2) Mahendrabhai Vishnubhai Patel, Ramol 3) Dhaneshbhai Manibhai Patel, Sandhana 4) Babubhai Valabhai Patel, Godhaj 5) Amratbhai Devabhai Patel, Der 6) Hirjibhai Narayanbhai Patel, Godhaj 7) Mukanji Hirji Patel, Kunda 8) Gautambhai Chanciabhai Patel, Maherav 9) Kashibhai Lallubhai Solanki, Dedarada 10) Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel, Maherav 11) Manojkumar Kantilal & Co., Tundav 12) JC Tobacco, Unja 13) Kantibhai Mathurbhai Patel, Maherav 14) Revabhal Ishwarbhai Patel, Balisana 15) Shri Brahmani Tobacco, Hansapur 16) Shri Ambica Tobacco, Hansapur 17) Bhagwati Tobacco Co, Unja 18) Rameshbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Sandhana 19) Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel, Sandhana 20) Kiritbha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has issued letter dated 26.09.2012 and 24.12.2012 55) Respective staff of M/s. Thane Municipal Corporation of Thane who is said to have physically collected octroi and issued octroi slips to tobacco importers within the limits of Thane Municipal Corporation during the period from 04.07.2011 to 05.08.2012 and period from 26.09.2010 to 23.05.2011 56) The Assistant Commissioner of Octroi, Pune Municipal Corporation who has issued letter dated 23.11.2012. 57) The Respective Staff of the Pune Municipal Corporation who has collected Octroi in regard to tobacco being imported inside the jurisdiction of Pune Municipal Corporation within the period from 2007 to 2012. 7.3 During the course of investigation, various statements of (a) Arvindbhai N. Patel, Proprietor of M/s. Jalaram Traders and Partner of M/s. Shree Gajanan Agency, (b) Mahendrabhai C. Patel, Proprietor of M/s. Patel Products, (c) Mahendrabhai C. Patel in capacity of Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Shree Krishna Traders and M/s. Shree M.C. Patel & Sons, (d) Pankaj Vitthalbhai Patel, Counter Salesman (Accountant) of Shree M.C. Patel &Sons, Kurla (W), (e) Ashok Shanabhai Patel, Partner of M/s. Shree Gajanan Agency, (f) Kes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfirms that what Mahendrabhai C. Patel has stated is correct. Under no specification / size, the yield has gone above 900 pouches per kilogram. Learned Advocate placed reliance on the affidavits of 25 different farmers / dalals of raw tobacco, who had supplied raw tobacco to (a) M/s. Patel Product, Khandhali, (b) M/s Shree Krishna Traders, Khandhali and (c) M/s Shree M.C. Patel & Sons, Khandhali. It is his submission that despite the fact that Shri Mahendrabhai Patel in his statement had categorically said that the quality of raw tobacco purchased by (a) M/s Patel Product, Khandhali, Anand, Gujarat, (b) M/s Shree Krishna Traders, Khandhali, Anand, Gujarat, and (c) M/s Shree M.C. Patel & Sons, Khandhali, Anand, Gujarat are different, inasmuch as, M/s. Patel Product purchased only "A"-Grade i.e., best quality tobacco as they pack branded tobacco and that the remaining two firms does business of unbranded tobacco, therefore, they purchased "B" Grade / "C" Grade tobacco. No investigation was carried out at the end of said Dalals / Farmers of raw tobacco suppliers to find out the veracity of the same. Instead, arbitrarily it was concluded that there was no difference in the quality and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent. Copies of the affidavits of (a) Jiya Pradip Jagiasi, Proprietor of Ekta Traders, (b) Mohd. Anjum Abdul Gafar, Partner of Haya Traders, Mumbai, (c) Mohd. Javed Haji Yakub, Partner of Heena Enterprise are annexed with the appeal memorandum filed by M/s Patel Product. He further submitted that if the SCN is referred to, then as per Annexure MCP 58800 bags of 40 KGs of 'A' grade are alleged to have been diverted. Likewise, as per Annexure SKT 15325 bags of 40 KGs of 'A' grade are alleged to have been diverted. Thus, as per the SCN, Total74125 bags of 40 KGs of 'A' grade were diverted. This means, 74125 bags x 40 KGs = 2965000 KGs, 2965000 KGs = 296500000 inner pouches of 10 gms. and 7412500 outer pouches containing 40 inner pouches each and 185313 gunis (big bags) containing 40 outer pouches each. All these must be in addition to the recorded quantity of finished goods as per ER-1 returns. The recorded quantity of inner pouches during Financial Year 2008-2009 was 51950300, Financial Year 2009-2010 was 43438200, Financial Year 2010-2011 was 39828000, Financial Year 2011-2012 was 29053000 and Financial Year 2012-2013 was 10174400. The total recorded quantity of inner pouches during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., she has stated that ratio of work force: number of gunis per day is 400 to 500 workers would pack more than 600 to 750 gunis per day. On the other hand, according Shivaji Dhansing Rahod, he has stated that ratio of work force: number of gunis per day is 300 to 325 workers would pack 187.5 to 203.75 gunis per day. Thus, without prejudice to the retraction affidavits of the said packing labourers and said labour supervisors as well as without prejudice to the affidavits of all other labour supervisors of other units, even otherwise the statements of both these people are not reliable. He further submitted that there is no investigation even in the direction of surreptitious procurement of plastic material / pouch / bag. The officers took a shortcut route and have mentioned in the SCN that a supplier of pouches Mr. Vyas has expired. They had in fact recorded statement of Mahendrabhai C. Patel, wherein they have got wrongly recorded that Mr. Vyas has expired, however, he is very much alive. He used to supply printed plastic bags / pouches to M/s. Patel Product only until the year 2001. Thereafter, he has discontinued supplying the same. The appellant had provided all the details of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uise of B / C grade tobacco of M C Patel & Sons and Shree Krishna Traders. No investigation at all in regard to purchase of different /similar qualities of tobacco by any of the three firms is made by the officers of Central Excise Department to support the said allegation. Further, the demand is based on considering diversion of 75 bags per trip although Mahendrabhai C. Patel is said to have stated 50 to 75 bags were diverted per trip. Even otherwise, the reliance placed on the letters along with enclosed data provided by (a) M/s Konark Infrastructure Ltd. i.e. octroi collecting agent for Kalyan and Dombivli Municipal Corporation, (b) Thane Municipal Corporation and (c) Pune Municipal Corporation is not sustainable. It has further been stated that the said worksheet provided by the said authorities to the office of the Central Excise Department were prepared by using computer. However, mandatory provisions of Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been followed. No certificate required under Section 36B(4)has been issued. Therefore, the said worksheets are not reliable. Despite repeatedly requesting for copies of octroi slips i.e. the source document on the basis of which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariffs of all the three Municipal Corporations in support of said submission were also placed on the appeal records. As the investigation failed to provide copies of the octroi slips, appellant had received the same under RTI from the respective Municipal Corporation. Copies of the said octroi slips are annexed with the appeal memorandum. It is observed from the same that, on none of the octroi slips 'Om Special Pandharpuri Tambakoo No. 1' is mentioned. What is mentioned in only 'tobacco'. M/s Jalaram Traders and M/s Shree Gajanan Agency used to purchase branded tobacco of M/s Patel Product as well as unbranded loose / bulk tobacco of M/s Shree Krishna Traders and M/s M.C. Patel & Sons. The said octroi slips only mentions 'Tobacco'. Wherever, no corresponding invoice, evidencing clearance of 'Om Special Pandharpuri Tambakoo No. 1' by M/s Patel Product is found, it is all clearance of unbranded loose / bulk tobacco of M/s Shree Krishna Traders and M/s M.C. Patel & Sons. As regards, the statements of transporters relied upon by the investigation, it has been submitted that, a reading of the said statement would show that on the respective LRs, which were found during investigation, '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tries V/s. Commr of C. Ex. Ahmedabad reported at 2007 (216) ELT 310 (Tri.-Ahmd) (ii) Commr of C. Ex., Ahmedabad-II V/s. Tejal Dyestuff Industries reported at 2009 (234) ELT 242 (Guj.) (iii) G. China Yellappa, Nizamabad V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Nizamabad ITTA Nos. 268/2003 dated 06.11.2014 by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. 7.7 Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it was further contended that even otherwise, the Show-cause Notice itself was not sustainable. It is so because, vide the Show-cause Notice, all the four units of M/s Patel Product which are separate registered manufacturers under the Central Excise Law, were jointly and severally called upon to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty should not be demanded from them. It is his submission that duty of Central Excise can only be demanded in regard to the goods manufactured. It can only be demanded from a particular manufacturer, who has manufactured the goods. The Show-cause Notice proposed demand of duty for the goods manufactured by one unit from all the four units. This was against the very concept of Central Excise Law. The appellants further submitted that four different units had four se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that even if it is assumed that they fall under the definition of "related party" as provided in Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, even then while applying the Valuation Rules, first of all Rule 4 contained therein is required to be applied first. As per said Rule, if an assessee is found to be selling identical goods to related buyers as well as unrelated buyers, then for the purpose of charging duty of Central Excise in regard to the goods cleared to the related buyers, the price at which identical goods are cleared to unrelated buyer at the nearest time and place of removal shall apply. In this context, they have relied upon the relevant invoices, evidencing sale of same products by M/s Patel Product to M/s Jalaram Traders / M/s Gajanan Agency as well as to third parties during the same period. It was further contended that the price at which identical goods are sold to third parties, at times, is lower than the price at which said goods are sold to M/s Jalaram Traders / M/s Gajanan Agency. Thus, in that view of the matter, there cannot be any allegation of under valuation. The demand of Rs. 3,67,06,613/- confirmed on the basis of said allegation along with interest is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r appellants cannot be sustained. 8.1 Shri Shamboonath, learned Special Counsel appearing for the Revenue has brought to the notice of the Bench the findings recorded at page 175 to 180 in the impugned order, to state that the affidavits were forged by the appellants. Therefore, he submitted that the said affidavits cannot be relied upon to decide the issue differently. In support of the submission that the appeals filed by the appellants are deserved to be dismissed, learned Special Counsel has relied upon the following judgements delivered by the judicial forum: a. Shyam Lal Biri Merchant Vs. Union of India - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 548 (All.) b. G Guru Instruments (North India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Meerut - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 846 (Tribunal) c. Collector of Customs, Madras & Others Vs. D. Bhoormull- 2002 -TIOL-253-SC-Cus. d. C.C. Excise, Surat I Vs. N.D. Textiles - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 381 (Tri. Mumbai) e. Judgement of C.C. EX. New Delhi Vs. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 155 (S.C.) f. Judgement of Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt Ltd. Vs.C.C. E. Hyderabad - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 263 (Tri. Bang.) g. Judgement of Commissioner C. Ex. Vs. International Cylinders Pvt Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their reply to the SCN filed before the adjudicating authority, had submitted copies of retraction affidavits of the persons, whose statements were recorded under summons during the course of investigation of the present dispute. The department had also conducted an enquiry into the retracted affidavits, the fact of which is evident from the available case records. The department had called for the information about the authenticity and veracity of the stamp papers from the Collector of Stamps (stamp paper issuing authority), Thane, in context with the officially recorded dates, on which the stamp papers were issued by them; the name of the stamp vendor to whom they were issued; the date of subsequent sale by the stamp vendor and the name of the person to whom such stamps were ultimately sold for actual use by the stamp vendor etc. On the basis of the reply furnished by the said authority, it was observed by the department that the stamp papers were issued between 03.09.2013 and 11.09.2013 to stamp vendor Shri Umar Sharif Mohammad Nawaz and that the statement of said stamp vendor was recorded on 10.03.2014. It was also observed that the stamp papers, on which the retracted affidav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deceased Notary (Ms. Charmaine Sanjay Phatarphekar). M/s Patel Product and Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel had also requested to afford cross examination of the District Revenue Officer, Thane, whose letter dated 12.03.2014 was relied upon. They requested for cross examination of Ajay Chandrakant Parmar, to whom, as per the enquiry, the stamp vendor had sold the stamp papers. In their response letter / reply to enquiry, M/s Patel Product and Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel have also submitted that when the Notary Public (Chowdhary Munir Hussain) denied his signature on the stamp papers, the same may be verified by a handwriting expert. We find that the learned adjudicating authority had not afforded opportunity of cross examination of any of the said persons viz., (a) the stamp vendor (Umar Sharif Mohammad Nawaz), (b) the Notary Public (Chawdhary Munir Hussain), (c) daughter-in- law of deceased Notary, whose statement was recorded (Ms. Charmaine Sanjay Phatarphekar), (d) the person to whom the stamp vendor stated to have sold the stamp papers (Ajay Chandrakant Parmar) and e) the District Revenue Officer, Thane, whose letter is relied upon by the learned adjudicating authority i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut a case, the department has to bring sufficient corroborative evidence to substantiate such case and that demand confirmed on presumption/assumptions are not sustainable. 10.2 Further, we also find from the impugned order as well as the submissions made by learned Special Counsel, that the retraction affidavits of all those persons, whose statements were recorded during the course of investigation, were backdated. The adjudicating authority at paragraph 12 on internal page 192 of the impugned order had recorded that the copies of statements were not provided to the respective persons immediately after the same were recorded. It is an admitted fact that the statements were provided to the noticees (the appellants, herein) only after issuance of the SCN. Though, it has been admitted by the adjudicating authority that when the statements were not provided to the noticees, it was not possible for them to retract the same without having benefit of copy of the said statements; but he has drawn an inference that the makers of the affidavit were having benefit of copy of the statements. We find that such logic advanced by the adjudicating authority for holding that the affidavits were b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery next date vide affidavit dated 21.06.2013, for which rejoinder dated 26.06.2013 was also issued by the officers of the department. The facts regarding recording of statements, their retractions and subsequent issuance of rejoinders were also recorded in the SCN. 10.5 We find that apart from the said two retraction affidavits, which were made before the Notary Public on the very next day of the said statements, in response to statement dated 10.06.2013 of Shri Mahendrabhai C. Patel, retraction affidavit was made before the Notary Public immediately on 11.06.2013 and the said retraction affidavits were also submitted through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) to the officers of the department. We have also perused copy of the 'Acknowledgement Card' of the Department of Post, evidencing receipt of the Registered Letter/Parcel by the 'Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Piramal Chamber, 7th Floor, Jijibhoy Lane, Lalbagh, Mumbai - 400 012". 10.6 We find that even if retraction affidavits in regard to all other statements were not taken into consideration, believing the same to be backdated / forged, but with regard to the last three statements, which were rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Act are complied with. It has also been held that if the data is not stored in the computer, but officers take out a printout from the hard disk drive by connecting it to the computer, then a certificate under section 36B of the Central Excise Act is mandatory. In the present case, admittedly the exercise envisaged under Section 36B ibid, has not been complied with by the department. 10.8 The learned adjudicating authority has placed reliance on the statements of various transporters stationed at Saki Naka, Mumbai and has also referred to the copies of Lorry Receipts (LRs), to conclude that 'Om Special Pandharpuri Tambakoo No. 1' has been clandestinely cleared through those transporters and that wherever LRs are found without corroborative Central Excise invoices, the same were clandestinely removed by M/s. Patel Product. However, on perusal of the statements of the transporters as well as the LRs (annexed in the appeal memorandum), we find that the description of the goods mentioned therein were 'Tambakoo', 'Tambakhoo', 'Pan Chutney', etc. However, none of these documents described the goods as 'Om Special Pandharpuri Tambakoo No. 1'. We accept the submissions of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turned down by him. In such scenario, we are of the considered view that allegation of diversion of tobacco of M/s. Shree M.C. Patel & Sons and M/s. Shree Krishna Traders for packing 'Om Special Pandharpuri Tambakoo No. 1' by M/s. Patel Product would not be sustained. Further, we have also noticed from the impugned order that the learned adjudicating authority, has denied the gradation of the tobacco mentioned in the invoices issued by the suppliers. In this context, we find that such allegation made by the department was not considered at the time of investigation into the matter, which is evident from the fact that no such allegation has been levelled in the SCN issued by the department. Insofar as, investigation of alleged duty evasion is concerned, the investigation wing's role is confined only to the stage of unearthing of evidences, facts, etc., and once such investigation is concluded, then all the material particulars are to be placed before the adjudication wing, for initiation of the Show cause proceedings and for adjudication of the matter arising therefrom. In other words, the adjudication order cannot make out a new case, which was not canvassed in the base document i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned Special Counsel has relied upon various judgements delivered by the judicial forum, to strengthen the case of Revenue in support of confirmation of adjudged demands on the appellants. As far as Shyam Lal Biri Merchant (supra) is concerned, the same was a judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a petition, challenging the stay order for pre-deposit; it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that grant of stay was a discretion of the Tribunal, either to grant stay or to order for making pre-deposit; the said judgement is not applicable in the present case, inasmuch as clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods was not the subject matter dealt with therein. The Order of the Tribunal in the case of G Guru Instruments (North India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has dealt with the issue of valuation of excisable goods and not the issue dealt with in the present dispute. In the case of D. Bhoormull (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the case of clandestine clearance may not be proved with mathematical precision. On the contrary, the present case is not a one, wherein some part of investigation is not precise. The present case is the one, wherein there is absolutely no inv....