9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hittaranjan Satapathy Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) [Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)].-1 . The appellant came in Appeal before this forum against order dated 26-8-2003 passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeal-II) of Central Excise, Kolkata dismissing the Appeal filed by the Appellant before him against the order of adjudication dated 16-11-2001 confirming duty demand of Rs.56,508/- (Rupees Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Eight only) followed by interest and equal amount of penalty. The proceeding was initiated against the Appellant under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Learned Commissioner (Appeal) held that the Appellant was lialble to pay the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inite period from 27-9-1998 and that letter was acknowledged by the Department on the same day. In that letter the Appellant had also clearly indicated that they are not in a position to run the factory from 27-9-1998 for which they submitted last meter reading with photocopy of the last electric bill for doing the needful by the Department. They also undertook by that letter that whenever the factory is reopened they shall intimate to the Department. Much later the date of intimation as above, the Department issued three show cause notices to the assessee for the relevant period raising the demands as under stating that they have not discharged the duty liability for the respective periods and have evaded.: S.C.N.Date P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Every time grievance of the Appellant was similar as aforesaid. But in reply dated 23-3-2001 the Appellant submitted that a survey report was also made by the departmental Inspector on 1-4-2000 mentioning closure of the factory. They earnestly prayed for hearing of their case and grant exemption from the duty in view of closure. The Authorities woke up on 16-11-2001 to dispose the matter arose out of aforesaid three show cause notices by an order of adjudication raising the demand aforesaid. 2. The Learned Consultant appearing for the Appellant submitted that the entire fact was brought to the notice of the Department on 15-10-1998 and it was well within the knowledge of the Department that there was no suppression of fact nor any del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as well as according to the provisions of law, Appellant is not liable to duty, penalty as well as interest. 3. The Learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Appellant having evaded the duty liability has been appropriately dealt under the law by the Authorities below. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record, Record reveals the fact that we have found in the preceding paragraphs. We are astonished to note that the Learned Commissioner did not deal with the contentions of the Appellant at all in the order impugned. Natural justice demands that decision should be based on evidence of probative value. On proper consideration of submissions decision flows. Neither the Appellate Authority below could dispose the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
