9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. We only take the facts in Central Excise Appeal No. 299 of 2014 and as Central Excise Appeal No. 286 of 2014 raise a question which is common and treated to be a substantial question of law. That questions read as under: "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is correct in upholding the demand of duty of Rs. 48,46,583/- along with interest and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-? (d) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is vitiated in holding that the Appellant has admitted the difference between the quantity shown in GP-1 and MRR in the course of investigation which has not been retracted when the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h March 1997. 7. The argument before us and as earlier reiterated before the Tribunal and the Commissioner was that this retracted statement has been heavily relied upon and which could not have been done. It is in these circumstances that the order-in-original dated 21st November 1997 confirming the entire demand of duty along with interest and equal amount of penalty, so also the Tribunal's order are challenged. 8. The Tribunal's order is dated 28th April 2014 on the Appeals which were filed before it and bearing Nos. E/3148 and 3149 of 2006. 9. These Appeals were placed before the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal on 4th April 2014 and a short cryptic order passed thereon and material for our purpose reads as under: "6. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the Appellant any further. These Appeals raise no substantial question of law. 12. After having heard both sides, we are of the view that the Appeals do raise substantial questions of law. That is how we admit them on the two substantial questions of law. 13. We have deliberately reproduced paragraph 6 of the impugned order hereinabove. That recites that there is an admission during the course of investigation and that had not been retracted. 14. However, what we find is that the show-cause notice is dated 31st March 1997. In reply to that show-cause notice, a letter dated 11th August 1997 specifically states at page 91 and after denying the allegations in the show-cause notice that the statement of Mr. Ashok Manibhai Patel, Deputy Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal does not wish to examine this, then, its refusal raises a substantial question of law. The last fact finding authority, viz., the Tribunal should have gone by the record. By not considering the record in its entirety and referring to some isolated event that too in an incomplete manner leads us to the only conclusion that the Tribunal has failed to perform its duty and in accordance with law. 16. We have, therefore, no alternative but to allow these Appeals and instead of, as desired by the Revenue, we undertaking the exercise which the Tribunal is expected to undertake and complete, we would prefer to allow both sides a fair opportunity and before the Tribunal itself. We do not wish to conclude the matter and to the detriment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
