9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. & Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. & Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Sinha, Adv. &Mr. B.K. Mishra, Adv. & Mr. Vikas Malhotra, Adv. & Mr. M.P. Sahay, Adv. & Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. & Mr. Siddhartha Arya, Adv. & Ms. Manjula Gupta,Adv. ORDER In the present case, show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise to the respondent No.1 on two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilding, plant and machinery of the respondent No.1 under Rule 173Q (2) of the Rules with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. This order-in-original passed by the Commissioner was challenged in appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT by the impugned order dated 04.03.2005 has allowed both the appeals filed by the respondent No.1 and the appeal filed by the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings or discussed any evidence in support of the confirmation of demand. Mr. Arjit Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the aforesaid issue. Following discussion is contained in the order of the adjudicating authority:- "The second issue for determination before me is of under valuation of goods by M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the demand. Thus, we do not agree with the findings of the CESTAT that adjudicating authority has not given any reasons or discussed the evidence. When there was no repetition of the material and the evidence mentioned in the show cause notice by the respondent No.1 it was not necessary to discuss the same on that account and this course was adopted by the adjudicating authority, and rightly so, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
