9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecified in the show cause notice were manufactured and removed without payment of duty or not", that demonstrates that he had prejudged mind to reach to his decision without testing the evidence on record. The order has been passed superficially. The Authority records status of two noticees i.e. Jayalakshmi Printing Mills and Bharath Printing Mills as partnership firms and there was proximity between the two. But, he suddenly came to the conclusion that he has no difficulty to hold that M/s. Jayalakshmi Printing Mills was engaged in illicit manufacture of processed fabrics in the premises of M/s.Bharath Printing Mills and removed that without payment of duty also. He has brushed aside the documents gathered by investigation and failed to te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Nos. E/453/2005 & E/454/2005 - Final Order No. 41598-41599/2016 - Dated:- 21-9-2016 - Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per D.N. Panda On the basis of investigation into the premises of M/s.Sri Jayalakshmi Printing Mills on 27.11.92 and result of investigation, the search party made allegation of loss of Revenue of ₹ 16,09,897/- towards duty. Summary of allegations was as under :- i) M/s.JPM and M/s.Bharath Printing Mills are one and the same located at 130- A/SF No.327/1, Perundurai Road, Pudur Pudupalayam, Erode and are doing processing of cotton fabrics wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction particulars of processed fabrics are higher than the processed fabrics found in M/s.Senthil Andavar Calendering Mills records. The District Supply Officer along with his letter dt. 8.2.93 enclosed the particulars submitted by M/s.Bharath Printing Mills signed by Shri N.R. Nachimuthu, as a partner, these particulars are dated 26.12.92 (i.e. after the date of officers). In this, the production particulars from 1/92 to 12/92 are shown to be less than the quantities found in M/s.Senthil Andavar Clandering Mills records (as processed for M/s/Bharath Printing Mills). For one year from January'92 to December'92 the total production is shown as 2,24,980 mtrs, whereas the production for one month during the immediately preceeding month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On the above allegations, adjudications were made twice on remand by Tribunal's Final Order No.1465 and 1466/2000 dt. 19.10.2000 and Final Order No.1148 and 1149/2002 dt.11.10.2002. Present impugned order is in third round of litigation before Tribunal. Appellant challenges the readjudication order on the ground that the authorities below raise the demand unjustly without examining material facts and evidence and if at all duty is demandable, that shall only to be made from M/s.Bharath Printing Mills. 3. Revenue opposes to the above contention of appellants supporting readjudication. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. The order of the Adjudicating Commissioner shows that he has not applied his mind when he write ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there were two distinct and independent units existed and what was their liability on the basis of investigation result and evidence on record. It is necessity of law that an assessee should not be unjustly be dealt under law. There should be cogent and credible evidence in support of each material fact and decision. But that was not tested by the Commissioner. It is relevant to mention that in para-14 of the SCN, the notice issuing authority noticed that M/s.Jayalakshmi Printing Mills had processed and cleared cotton fabrics to M/s.Bharath Printing Mills directly and through M/s.Senthilandavar Calendering Mills and M/s.Sri Devi Felt Calender without accounting the transactions in the statutory records and without payment of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
