9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2.1 The facts relating to these two cases are stranger than fiction. The Appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking. The adjudicating authority is a commissioner specially nominated for adjudication. In Order-in-Original No. 07/MP/Commr.(Adjn.)/2006 dated 31-1-2006, the Commissioner, in pursuance to the Show Cause Notice dated 9-3-2005, confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 16,95,92,290/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Ninety Five Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety only) relating to the period 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2004 and imposed equal amount of penalty. The Commissioner, in his admirably short order, did not even indicate the amount of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants that there was duplication of the demand. Such a claim is being made before the Tribunal for the first time. It is also not known how the Commissioner has passed two orders on the same day over-looking this aspect of duplication. The Commissioner's orders are very brief especially the discussion and finding portions. In fact, there is hardly any discussion on the issues. 4.2 There appears to be no end to surprises. The dispute relates to valuation of goods cleared by the appellants on stock transfer basis to their other units. The Show Cause Notice dated 9-3-2005 records year-wise cost of production as follows :- Year wise Cost of Production 2000-01 111887 per M.T. 2001-02 131385 per M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uge demands have been confirmed mechanically and very casually by the Commissioner by issuing cryptic orders and without discussing the issues in proper perspective. Equally sad is the conduct of the assessee in not making efforts to defend their case properly by presenting the basic facts before the Commissioner. 6. Apparently both the orders cannot be allowed to be supported by the Department as there is a clear duplication of demand. Thus, the department has to necessarily make a choice as to which of the orders they want to support before the Tribunal. 7. As already noted, both the orders have been passed by the same Commissioner on the same date after hearing the representation of the party and their advocate. Both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
