9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were carrying on only the activity of refurbishing old transformers and were not carrying on the activity of manufacturing new transformers and hence, the allegation of clandestine removal is not supported by any evidence from Revenue. We also notice that the Original Authority had confirmed demands pertaining to previous offence case of removal of old transformers. We also noted that an opportunity to cross-examination had also been denied. The findings recorded in para 6 by the Commissioner is given hereunder. 6. I have carefully gone through the case records. My observations regarding the appellants contentions are as under. I find that issuing of two show cause notices covering the same period is bad in law. Arriving at the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em and I find that this plea was already taken by the appellants before the learned Joint Commissioner. The appellant assessee had produced the bills evidencing purchase of old transformers from M/s. T. Hanumantha Rao, a dealer in old (used) goods. As per the bills produced by the appellants, they had purchased about 287 transformers of various ratings - 63 KVA, 100 KVA, during the period from 20-9-1997 to 12-2-2002. The appellants have also produced a register giving the account of the old and used transformers, giving the date-wise details of the purchases. I further find that the appellants have requested for cross-examination of the representative of the co-operative societies, during the course of personal hearing before the learned Jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why the witnesses could not be made available for cross-examination, I find the scale of justice should tilt in favour of the appellants. I hold that the charge levelled against the appellants were not conclusively proved and are not sustainable. Accordingly, I hold that the impugned order confirming the duty demand by the Joint Commissioner is liable to be set aside. Thereby, I hold that the penalties imposed on the appellants company as well it s proprietor Shri P. Srinivasulu, are also not sustainable in law. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER I allow the appeal filed by M/s. Raghavendra Industries, Cuddapah and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original No. 7/2003 dt. 24-3-2003 passed by the Joint Commissioner, with consequentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The Bombay High Court judgment rendered in the case of Metal Extruders India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 477 (Bom.) is also relied. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions and the order passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has examined the issue in detail and found that the Revenue has not produced any evidence to support the charge of manufacture and clearance of new transformers clandestinely without payment of duty. He has accepted the plea of the appellant that their activity was only refurbishing and repairing the old transformers. He has also found fault with the Joint Commissioner having included the number of transformers which had adjudicated in the earlier period. There is also violation of principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
