SANGAM PRINTS PVT. LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all these appeals are directed against same impugned Order -in -Original No. 06/MP/2007, dt.23.02.2007; they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE relevant facts, after deleting unnecessary details, are that the officers of DGCEI searched the factory premises and office/godown premises of M/s Sangam Prints Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as main appellant). Various documents were withdrawn including loose documents, diary, note book etc from the briefcase of Shri Suresh Agarwal, Director of the main appellant. On collating the information on documents, it revealed that the main appellant has clandestinely processed the grey fabrics received by them from merchant manufacturers under kacha delivery challans and clandestinely removed the processed fabrics without payment of duty. Statements were also recorded of various persons including purchasers of the processed finished goods. Based upon various information collated and statements recorded, show cause notice was issued to the main appellant as well as all other appellants to show cause as to why the demand of duty be not raised on them along with interest for clandestine removal of the goods, interest thereof and penalties be not imposed on all the appellants. The main appellant as well as the other appellants contested the issue on merit before the adjudicating authority wherein they challenged the panchnama and also calculation of duty on the charge of clandestine removal. The adjudicating authority, after following the due process of law, did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant and confirmed the demand of duty, interest thereof and also imposed penalties on all the appellants herein.

(3.) LD . Departmental Representative, on the other hand, would draw our attention to the findings of the adjudicating authority and also to the records before us. It is his submission that as regards the demand of duty for the period July 2002 to September 2002, the main appellant could not show from the ledger account that the figures mentioned are of outstanding dues. It is his submission that on the contrary, the ledgers which were produced, indicated that there was excess dues in the ledger account as compared to the private records. It is his submission that the main appellant did not produce party -wise ledger earlier, later on they produced the same and the summary of party -wise ledger for these 3 months i.e. July to September, 2002 indicated that the outstanding amounts were not true and the amounts indicated in the ledger were more than the amount as recorded in the private register. It is his submission that there were various discrepancies and the figures did not tally with each other. He would submit that the statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal when recorded on 9/10.01.2003, did not mention about the details of the figures for the period July to September, 2002 and subsequently after a period of 10 months, it was claimed that these figures are to be of the amount of job charges due from customers. It is his submission that the main appellant did not give the names of the customers from whom the said amount was due.