9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer of pan masala and gutkha falling under tariff heading 2403 99 90. 2. The Income Tax Department as part of their investigations in 2009 had raided the premises of one Shri Manoj Mithulal and seized certain records, loose papers and sheets which are said to be owned by Shri Sohanraj Mehta, the C & F Agent of the appellant. After obtaining the loose papers/sheets from the Income Tax authorities, the Central Excise authorities initiated investigations and a show-cause notice was issued on 1.8.2012 against M/s. DIL and several other persons associated with the company as well as employees/part of management of DIL. As a result of the proceedings, impugned order has been passed. In the impugned order, it has been held: (i) 57085 ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in detail and their defence. We also heard the learned AR who vehemently argued and supported the impugned order and the findings therein. After considering the submissions made during the hearing and after going through the records, we found that even though we are reluctant to do so especially after hearing the matter in such detail, the following observations would show that we had no alternative but to resort to remanding the matter to the learned original authority for fresh decision. We also consider it appropriate to remand the matters under the circumstances since the appeals may not come up for final hearing in the near future if a stay is granted. However, having regard to the fact that the issue involved is clandestine removal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities which was subsequently retracted also he had stated that he was not only selling the products of DIL but also products from other manufacturers which he was not supposed to do. He had submitted that in respect of products received from others, he was using the Code A and in respect of goods received from DIL, he was using the Code DIL. He submitted that adjudicating authority has interpreted products with Code A as clearances made without payment of duty which is totally wrong. It was submitted that the statement of Shri Sohanraj Mehta that one gutka package according to the codes used by DIL and according to Shri Sohanraj Mehta means one lakh rupees and on this basis the amounts paid have been calculated. He submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll. He was not made available for cross examination also. The whole case depends upon the interpretation of loose sheets and the version of Shri Sohanraj Mehta which was changed several times during the period and unless the cross-examination of the persons was allowed, the appellants could not defend the case properly. The raw materials suppliers are also in appeal and their contentions is also that they have not supplied or purchased the appellants products removed clandestinely. It was also submitted that an audit was conducted, which was headed by a Commissioner and they also did not find any discrepancy in the records. 6. Even though we are not able to agree with the submission that the Revenue should have conducted investigation on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent have been seized or intercepted while clearing without payment of duty; even though consumption of raw materials has been considered, how it has helped excess production has not been discussed. The fact of retraction of SLM has not been discussed; even though shri SLM had accepted certain income before the Income Tax authorities no questions were asked as to the what commission was earned and how much excess quantity he had sold and how he undertook these transactions; other than the statement of SLM, there is no other evidence to show that the meaning of codes A and Gutka package. The learned counsel questioned the correctness of the quantification based on loose sheets. No question has been asked and no verification has been conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) within eight weeks and report compliance to the original adjudicating authority who shall take up adjudication of the matter thereafter. We also request the learned Commissioner to communicate his acceptance or otherwise of the request for cross-examination of the persons requested for by the appellants in advance and hear the appellants and thereafter reach a conclusion in accordance with law. 9. As regards the remaining appellants on whom penalties have been imposed, we consider that their cases also are required to be heard afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove and further they also should be given reasonable opportunity to present their case. In their cases, we are not req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
