2017 (8) TMI 1170 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2017 (358) E.L.T. 143 (Del.) – Clandestine manufacture and removal – According to the Department, unaccounted copper ingots and kachi parchis were found during search – Held that: – The view taken by the CESTAT on an appreciation of the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be improbable. Mr. Harpreet Singh was unable to persuade the Court to hold that there was any perversity vitiating the said findings – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – CEAC No. 21/2017 & CM APPL 28675/2017 AND CEAC No. 23/2017 & CM APPL 28677/2017 Dated:- 11-8-2017 – S. MURALIDHAR & PRATHIBA M. SINGH JJ Appellant Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Namrat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
that during the time of search Mr. Satish Kumar Chopra, the General Manager of the company, was present and a panchnama was drawn on the spot. According to the Department, unaccounted copper ingots and kachi parchis were found. 3. On 31st July, 2007 a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) was issued to the Respondents. By the order in original dated 27th March, 2009 passed by the CCE a demand of ₹ 4,34,73,449.87/- was confirmed. Apart from this, penalty and interest was also levied. 4. Aggrieved by the above adjudication order, both the Respondents filed their respective appeals before the CESTAT which were allowed by the common impugned order dated 26th December, 2016. 5. The Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ods. Reliance is placed by the Department on the statement made by Mr. S. K. Chopra which, however, was retracted. During cross-examination, Mr. Chopra claimed that the initial statement was recorded under threat of arrest. 8. As far as the 102 slips found in File 25 of the seized records was concerned, reliance is placed by the Department on the statements recorded of one Mr. Gopal Krishnan as well as Mr. S. K. Chopra. The CESTAT found that the explanation given by these two deponents was contradictory in terms of the figures and other particulars and, therefore, was unreliable. 9. The view taken by the CESTAT on an appreciation of the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be improbable. Mr. Harpreet Singh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =