TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty demand of Rs. 49,53,783/- and other demands of penalties were under challenge. In all four appeals had been filed. Allegations against the petitioner were that it had suppressed the production and clearance of 90,782.15 MTs of ordinary Portland cement during the period from 1-8-1993 to 19-8-1996 and evaded duty of the above amount. Penalty of amount equal to duty was levied under Section 11AC of the Act. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also levied for contravention of the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each was levied on other three appellants - Directors of the petitioner company, M/s. Hanumant Cement Pvt. Ltd. According to the Commissioner, a clear case of clandestine removal was m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atures of the Supervisors who were working in the day shift as well as night shift. One sample page from the seized record was also referred to and reproduced in the order. Tribunal did not accept the plea that the records did not pertain to the appellant before it. The further stand that the factory was closed for some time in July, 1996 due to invalidation of ICI specification and due to floods etc. were also considered to be inconsequential on the face of details which the seized record revealed. It recorded a positive finding that the seized records pertained to production and clearance of cement by the petitioner. So far as the capacity of the mill is concerned, on 3-10-1996 the aforesaid Jai Prakash stated the capacity to be 100 MT pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on each of the Directors under Section 209A was also cancelled. 4.In support of the reference application, it has been stated that Tribunal's order is perverse as it fails to take into consideration various aspects and materials on record. 5.Vital aspects, which according to the learned Counsel were not noticed are as follows : ! "Search was carried in total disregard of the laid down in that behalf making it mandatory to follow procedure laid down under Section 165 Cr. P.C. No witness was called and no Panchnama drawn. ! Accountant was threatened with arrest and other consequences and therefore left factory to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nducted by department of records for the years 1-4- 1995 to 31-12-1997 showing no discrepancy ignored." 6.On a perusal of the Tribunal's order, we find that each of the contentions raised by the assessee has been negatived on a reference to the materials on record. Plea that the seized documents did not belong to the assessee is clearly untenable and the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. The fact that the signatures of various supervisors and details regarding working of shifts, power break down, bags manufactured in each shift evidently show that books belonged to the petitioner company and to none else. Similarly, other aspects highlighted by petitioner as referred to above, al....