9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record independently and rendered its findings objectively as regards the guilt or otherwise, whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right to set aside the Order-in-Appeal without deciding the case on its merits without even remanding the case to its original jurisdiction for a decision afresh on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice? (2) While the Hon'ble Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., reported in 2004 (176) ELT 656 in the similar facts and circumstances of cases, has categorically held that no violation of the principles of natural justice if the Manager was not produced for cross examination especially when the assessee themselves have alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter dated 1.2.2000, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise informed the assessee that necessary instructions had been issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to allow the Modvat credit for the tools, dies and moulds cleared to the job workers prior to 1999, which was done without payment of duty. However, it was claimed by the respondent-assessee that permission was sought from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and the goods were cleared on the basis of such permission letter. A show cause notice was issued on 23.12.99 alleging that the tools, dies and moulds were cleared to the job workers without payment of duty and for recovery of the credit of Rs. 8,83,320/-. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules from Rs. 8,83,320/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. In its order, the first appellate authority relied upon a statement of one Mr.Muralidharan and came to the conclusion that the finding of the adjudicating authority as to the removal of goods to the job workers without payment of duty, was correct. The first appellate authority confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority in other aspects, except with regard to penalty. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee went before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision in ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (2003) 153 ELT 366, was of the view that the reliance placed by the first appellate authority on the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciated the entire gamut of the case as adjudicated by the original authority and should have come to a definite conclusion as to whether the department's claim for excise duty and penalty is justified or not. 6. We heard Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, who was at pains to point out that on merits they have an excellent case, inasmuch as the duty was paid by the assessee and only thereafter the goods were cleared to the job workers, as a consequence, the assessee is entitled to avail the Modvat credit on the duty paid. This is an issue on facts which cannot be re-agitated before the Tribunal or the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), as the case may be. It is also the case of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
