2007 (12) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by Rule 5 - no evidence shall be admitted unless the comm.(A) records in writing the reasons for its admission - impugned order not sustainable - matter remanded to ad. authority to examine the evidences in relation to unjust enrichment - 202 of 2007-SM - 178/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 13-12-2007 - Shri. P.K.DAS, MEMBER (J) [Order].- 1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evidence, which is hit by Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001. She relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mandhana Dyeing vs CCE , Thane reported in 2005(180) ELT.255 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that it is evident from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) examined all the documents placed by the respondent. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Appeals) did not record any finding for admission of the new evidences. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. However, the respondent placed the evidences before the Commissioner (Appeals) which are required to be examined by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to examine the evidences in connection with unjust enrichment. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X