TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... comprised of 5 manufacturing units namely : (i) Amtek Auto Ltd.-I, Sohna (AAL-I) (ii) Amtek Auto Ltd.-II, Gurgaon (AAL-II) (iii) Bond Amtek Ltd., Gurgaon (BAL) (iv) Amtek India Ltd., Gurgaon (AIL) (v) Amtek Auto Ltd.-III, Gurgaon (AAL-III) and were engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle Parts falling under Chapters 84, 87, 73 and 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were availing Modvat credit facility in respect of duty paid on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "Rules....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings therein are going on separately; that neither any of the units of the appellants were visited by the Central Excise Officers nor any information called for after 22-12-1998; that only after lapse of 3 months when the department had failed to make out any case against the appellants as a result of last publicised rates, concerned Central Excise Officers conspired and transplanted the false case of Modvated capital goods in all the 4 units of appellants to justify their action on unlawful raid; that the Central Excise Officers extorted the submission of Shri Vinod Uppal, Manager (Accounts) on 11-3-1994 in confirmation of the shortage of Modvated capital goods in the 4 units of the appellants detected by them by visiting; that committa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocure documents/records assumed by the officer so as to enable them to prepare defence reply and appellants also requested for one months time for submission of defence reply; that without appreciating submission made by the appellants in their letter dated 23-8-2001, another date of hearing was given on 27/28-9-2001; appellants vide letter dated 28th September, 2001 again requested for inspection/supply of the relied upon record/document before the said date of hearing; despite the subsequent repeated requests, the respondent verbally rejected the request for supply/inspection of the relied upon documents; accordingly appellants appeared before him on 1-10-2001 and submitted their written submission individually; that they produced docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 1-10-2001 filed at the time on the personal hearing on 1-10-2001; that the observation of the learned Commissioner is based on assumption and presumptions entirely based on false investigation report of the Central Excise Officers that Commissioner has merely gone by the statement of Shri Vinod Uppal without verification of his correctness with reference to relevant records and documents; that statement of Shri Vinod Uppal recorded on 11-3-1999 regarding verification of the capital goods in question with reference to RG 23C (Pts. I and II) is meaningless when he was not participant to the physical verification done on 2-2-1999, 4-2-1999, 5-2-1999 and 6-2-1999 in respective factory; that from the statement of Shri Vinod Uppal it is not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the show cause notice; that nothing has been brought on record by the Deptt. or in the show cause notice that they have found anything incriminating during their visit; that Shri Uppal was not a technocrat expert in the field so as to verify the listed items shown to him which were available in the factory; that the statement recorded would have been of some value if the same was from the works manager. 3. That in support of his contention learned Advocate relied on the following decisions : (1) Deepak Tandon reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1079 to the effect that charge of clandestine removal is required to be proved by production of positive and tangible evidence. (2) Grauer & Weil India ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... acknowledgement is also required; that Shri Uppal (Deputy Manager Accounts) was an authorised representative; that statement has never been retracted; that he reitrated the findings of the Commissioner. 4. That in his rejoinder the learned Advocate submitted that goods in question were installed in respective units; that show cause notice at pages 34, 41, 50 do not relate to the present case and, therefore, provisions under Rule 57(2) pointed out by the learned JDR are not attracted in the present case as the goods were not removed; that the statement of the authorised officer of the company relied on by the Deptt. to show cause as on pages 34, 41a and 50 are not relevant for the present case and, therefore, the contention of the learned ....