9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 16-CE/2008 dated 31-1-2008, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the lower Adjudicating Authority. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses and Ethyl alcohol denatured falling under Chapter Heading Nos. 1701, 1703 and 2204 respectively of the Schedule to the CETA of 1985. They reprocessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case are 49.72% and 14.5% respectively during the season 1994-95 and 1996-97 respectively. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the case. It is contended that even if the test report has not been received earlier, the show-cause notice could be issued within 5 years in the instant case which is the case of clandestine removal. 5. The contention of the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the department is silent regarding the molasses produced/recovered during reprocessing of the brown sugar. Admittedly, the molasses are produced during reprocessing of brown sugar. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded this fact in paragraph 3(ii) at page 2 of his Order-in-Appeal. The department has not made any attempt whatsoever to controvert the same. Therefore, I find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contents thereof. Obviously, nothing prevented the department to obtain the report directly from CRCL. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding suppression and clandestine removal of sugar, the respondent countered this by stating that they have been filing the requisite returns and did not suppress anything from the department. I find force in the contention of the respondent. Bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
