SIDDHI COMPUTERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A search was carried out by the Central Excise officers in the premises of M/s. Siddhi Computers, Ahmedabad on 25 -8 -2008 (1st appellant). During the search, one blank letterhead of M/s. Com Trade Agency was found and also 36 invoices issued by M/s. Com Trade Agency were also found. Statements of Shri Rajesh Manglani, Partner were recorded and he admitted that he was engaged in the manufacture of computers and was selling them in the name of M/s. Com Trade Agency and he was receiving the bills, receipts and quotations in the name of M/s. Com Trade Agency using the blank letter heads found in the office belonging to M/s. Com Trade Agency. The officers proceeded to calculate the total amount of clearances based on the invoices of M/s. Com Trade Agency found in the premises and proceedings were initiated, which culminated in confirmation of demand for duty of Rs. 2,10,900/ -, imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Siddhi Computers and of Rs. 20,000/ - on the partner Shri Rajesh Manglani. Both are in appeal.

(2.) LD . Counsel on behalf of the appellant took me through the details of the case and submitted that there are several wrong factual findings in the orders passed by the lower authority viz. cheque books of M/s. Com Trade Agency were found in the premises of the appellant; bank account of M/s. Com Trade Agency was handled by Shri Rajesh Manglani; that the signature of Shri Rajesh Manglani in the statement tallied with the signatures in the bills/invoices; the retraction of statement by Shri Rajesh Manglani was after thought because the same was given after 3/12 days. It was submitted that the panch witnesses in the cross -examination had admitted that they were not present during the search operation at all. Further, it was also submitted that there was no mention of cheque book recovered from the premises of the appellant in the panchnama. Further, it was also submitted that Shri Rajesh Manglani had given a statement immediately after search, but that statement has not been relied upon even though normally, immediately after search, the first statement is considered important. The fact that it has not been relied upon would show that the statement was not inculpatory at all.

(3.) LD . A.R. relied upon the observations and conclusions of the lower authorities and submits that the appellant had indulged in the manufacture and clearance of computers without payment of duty and evidences gathered are sufficient to show this.