9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heading 24 of CET and for manufacture of shells, slides and gay wrapper falling under Chapter 47 of CET. 2. The Miscellaneous Application pertains to production of additional documents, which were furnished during the adjudication. The Miscellaneous Applications are allowed. 3. The show cause notice is dated 12-12-1996 and the period involved is 1-1-1995 to 30-9-1995 invoking larger period in the matter. The appellant, a Tobacco company is situated in the suburb, Biccavolu is located in Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh away from the town. The factory is controlled by six officers of the Department with two sepoys guards manning the main gate. The allegation of the Department is that on investigation of private registers, it was found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce with regard to any person having purchased the final product viz., cigarettes. While discharging the price there could be no possibility to remove the goods when the entire factory is controlled by six officers and two sepoys of the Department. The officers were staying in the Guest House within the factory, therefore the private records meant for some different purpose cannot be used against the appellants to hold the allegation of clandestine receipt of raw materials and manufacture of final products and removal of the same. He submits that without evidence of purchasers of final products and receipt of flow back of funds, the charge of clandestine removal fails. In this regard, he relies on the ratio of the following judgment. (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nics v. CCE, Chennai - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Chennai.) (c) Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad-II - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 263 (Tri.-Bang.) (d) Bula Ghosh v. CC, Kolkata - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 69 (Tri.-Kolkata). (e) CCE, Coimbatore v. Acufil Machines - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 326 (Tri.-Chennai.) (f) Saraswati Engineering Works v. CCE, Mumbai-III - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 40 (Tri.-Mumbai). (g) K. Manickam v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 371 (T). (h) Ratlam Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT, New Delhi - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 154 (MP). 7. On our perusal, we do not find any sufficient reason for rejecting the plea for cross examination of other persons and the officers of the Department. The Commissioner has onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue has to show also that there has been excess production of electricity. Mere reliance on private registers to confirm the demands is not sufficient in terms of large number of judgments relied on by the appellants. The case laws relied upon are RGR (sic) - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 187 and Ashwin Vanaspati - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 175 are also relevant in this case. 8. In view of the violation of principles of natural justice, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Original Authority for de novo consideration. The appellant shall be given full opportunity to cross examine on the relied upon witnesses including the officers and sepoys of the Department who were in physical control of the factory. The Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
