Page 246 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

132 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

dealer of the main appellants. M/s. JBCPL was also registered as first stage deal-
er under the provisions of Excise Act and maintaining all the statutory records
including RG-23D. It is submitted that on the similar ground, Learned Adjudicat-
ing Authority has dropped the demand in respect of sales to M/s. MBSC the oth-
er consignment agent of main appellant and hence the similar treatment was re-
quired to be met to the appellant also. This has not been done by the Learned
Adjudicating Authority, which in itself is wrong by holding two different find-
ings in respect of similar transaction to the dealers of the main appellants.
4.3 It is also on record that M/s. JBCPL were consignment
agent/dealers of another company as well. Thus, the conclusion that the entire
quantity mentioned in the show cause notice is about the receipt from the goods
from appellant company is not correct. There is no independent evidence to
show that the appellant has sold a quantity of 4350.784 MTs of SS flats to M/s.
JBCPL, but for some private records which was not acceptable to the appellant
on account of being doubtful in nature. Since, this was not the case of clandestine
clearance and entire sale and purchase were recorded in the ledger of the appel-
lant, least the department ought to have verified these from the supplier/buyer
of the goods, which has not been done in this case. This makes the demand in-
correct and illegal.
4.4 It was also submitted that Shri S.C. Kathuria, Managing Director of
the appellant company, in his various statements, recorded by the DGCEI officer,
has categorically denied the averment of Shri Raman Bhatia, and other person.
He was also confronted with the documents seized from the residence of Shri
Raman Bhatia, wherein, he has stated that M/s. JBCPL was not their exclusive
agent and purchasing SS flats from various other manufacturers and selling them
in the market. It was also categorically stated by Shri S.C. Kathuria that he has
not received any cash from M/s. JBCPL towards the sale made by the appellant
company. It was also submitted by him that the main appellant has not dealt
with Shri K.K. Jain and receiving any money from him on behalf of the main ap-
pellant was also categorically denied.
4.5 He, therefore, submitted that perusal of the documents seized from
residence of Shri Raman Bhatia do not even remotely suggest that he was dealing
with the main appellant as a consignment agent, as there is no mention of main
appellant’s name in any of the documents seized by the DGCEI.
4.6 It was also stated by Ld. Advocate that the documents seized from
Shri Raman Bhatia at his residence had been written by Shri K.K. Jain or Shri
Shivaji, which was admitted by Shri Raman in his statement dated 15-11-2011. It
is not evident as to why and how these documents written by Shri K.K. Jain were
found at the residence of Shri Raman Bhatia. In this case, no statements were
recorded from either Shri K.K. Jain or Shri Shivaji on this aspect. Both of them
were never examined during the course of investigation or adjudication.
4.7 During the relevant period, the main appellants were selling their
products to other parties also apart from their consignment agent i.e. M/s.
JBCPL. During the investigation various dealers were also searched by DGCEI
viz. Apex Alloys, Jodhpur, M/s. Rajdhani Traders, Jodhpur, M/s. Bhoop Singh
Jodhpur and M/s. Maa Beri Steel Co., Jodhpur and copies of invoices, under
which the goods were sold by the appellant to M/s. JBCPL revealed that the
price of SS Flats ranged from Rs. 47,000/- PMT to Rs. 53,500/- which were al-
most identical to price at which other dealers were supplied by the appellant. On

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  294