9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice. He found that even when those particulars and materials which are against the respondent No.1 as disclosed in the show cause notice, the respondent No.1 said nothing in defence. This is precisely the reason given by the adjudicating authority in confirming 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, to avoid repetition. Thus, insofar as the issue of under-valuation is concerned, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Rules. The Commissioner also ordered for confiscation of land, building, 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 ₹ 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 Revenue was dismissed. This is how the Revenue is before this Court by way of these appeals challenging the correctness of the order passed by the CESTAT. Insofar as the issue of clandestine removal of goods by respondent No.1 is concerned, we find that on the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en those particulars and materials which are against the respondent No.1 as disclosed in the show cause notice, the respondent No.1 said nothing in defence. This is precisely the reason given by the adjudicating authority in confirming 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, to avoid repetition. Thus, insofar as the issue of under-valuation is concerned, we find substance in these appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
