9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1944, with interest, imposed redemption fine of Rs.55 lakhs, besides imposing penalty of Rs.3.58 crores approx. under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and of Rs.50 lakhs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962.The period involved in this case is June 2001 to April 2002. 3. After hearing both sides on the stay petitions, we find that the matter is coming up for second time before the Tribunal as in the earlier round, we had remanded matter back to the adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue afresh. 4. After hearing on the Stay Petitions for considerable time,we find that we are unable to proceed in the matter anymore asthe adjudicating authority has not followed our direction in proper perspective and hence after allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority. 7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 8. We find that the demand in this case, comprises of two components:- (i) demand of approx. Rs.2.34 crores in respect of grey fabrics allegedly woven in the applicants 100% EOU for 14 different merchant manufacturers on job work basis and (ii) demand of approx. Rs.1.24 crores in respect of fabrics allegedly woven in the applicants 100% EOU and sold through M/s United Enterprises and M/s Shree Shyam Syntex. 9. While remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority in the first round of litigation, in Para 6, this Bench gave the directions which are as under: After considering the above submissions and after going through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be examined for the first time.We find that our earlier order does not indicate any direction to the adjudicating authority to examine the documents, but we had remanded the matter back only to examine whether based on such documents produced by the appellant/applicant, Departments case regarding clandestine removal stood rebutted or not.Suffice to say that the adjudicating authority failed to appreciate evidence in form of challans, bills, bank statements which were resumed during the investigation, also the fact if the investigating officers have chosen not to investigate, it is not open to Commissioner to reject summarily such an evidence when produced by an assessee in his defence.We find that the direction of the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us shows non-application of mind in as much as it is suggested that the bills and challans of job worker in Bhiwandi have been prepared and raised just to show the said parties have done the job work for M/s United Enterprises and M/s Shree Shyam Syntex and has sought to dis-credit such evidence by pointing out various discrepancies in the said documents.In our view, the said findings recorded by the adjudicating authority go beyond the scope of show cause notice as there is no such allegation and challans are in the case of fabrics supplied by M/s Mamta Creations and were accepted as being done by weavers in Bhiwandi and are genuine and acceptable.We also find that the ld.Commissioner has not dealt with the appellants submission that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
