CHAJJAR TEXTILES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS of the case as set out in the impugned order are as follows : -

(2.) LEARNED Consultant Shri K.L. Rekhi for the appellant has stated that although this case has arisen as a result of the raids carried out by the Central Excise Officers on 12 -2 -1994 and 23 -2 -1994, it was artificially split up into two separate cases - one relating to the seized goods and the current liability adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner and the other relating to the past liability adjudicated by the Commissioner resulting in the order impugned in this appeal.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe from the impugned order that main evidence relied upon by the Commissioner of Central Excise is the evidence of G.C. Sancheti, who is only a partner of M/s. Mool Chand Sujanmal and has nothing to do with the appellant's unit. Commissioner's reliance on this statement is totally unwarranted. Although he has tried to justify it on the ground that nobody came forward from the appellant No. 1, except G.C. Sancheti, on service of summon under Section 14 of the Act to the Appellant. Nothing has been averred in the impugned order as to on which person the said summons were served on behalf of the appellant. If the summons have been served on G.C. Sancheti himself as appears to be the case, how could the proprietrix of the appellant firm could know it?