9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayable by appellant. In the denovo adjudication we find that lower authority has glossed over the submission of the appellant that the seized invoices/documents required by them for putting forward a defence have not been supplied by DGCEI. The adjudicating authority has then given the cryptic order without quantifying the duty amount payable as directed by the Tribunal. The lower authority has me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and undervaluation. The notice proposed demand of duty amounting to ₹ 69,53,381/ along with interest thereon and imposition of penalties. The notice also proposed confiscation of cast iron articles seized at factory premises and confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery. On first adjudication the Commissioner confirmed the proposals in the notice. On appeal by appellant, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-01-2004 observed that the Commissioner being the adjudicating authority, was the only competent authority to quantify the duty amount payable and in view thereof, the matter was remanded to the concerned authority to examine the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Tribunal ordered that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the department submitted that the Commissioner s order lacks clarity and has not been passed in consonance with the Tribunal's directions and requires to be remanded for denovo consideration. 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of issuing notice. We have heard the AR and perused the appeal records carefully. 6. We find that there is merit in the submissions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion that order of lower authority has merely ended with rejection of Modvat Credit without any order for duty to be recovered and fine and penalties to be imposed. 8. In the result, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order has not addressed all the proposals of the show cause notice and in particular', the directions of the Tribunal dated 30-01-2004. Accordingly, we set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
