9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompetent appellate Court. That was not done and to attempt to get the impugned order set aside for complying with remand directions is not a proper or timely exercise of power of review under Central Excise Act, 1944. It would appear that the reviewing authorities entertained the belief that the adjudicating authority would make use of this opportunity to flout the directions of the Tribunal and hence did not opt for remedying of their grievances against the remand directions of the Tribunal that are now sought to be articulated. Contrary to all canons of judicial propriety, this appeal seeks to review our own earlier order. This we must decline to do - The grounds of appeal have not raised any point of substance on the findings of the adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30th October 1996 of Central Board of Excise & Customs. Certificate of Chartered Accountant for assessment of 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 showed a shortfall of 16.97%, 20.26% and 25.34% respectively which is usually higher than the declared process loss. Based on report of Assistant Director (Cost), the assessable value of the compounds were re-worked. Consequent upon adjudication which confirmed duty liability of ₹ 3,05,33,417/-, the assessee carried the matter to the Tribunal which remanded the matter back to original authority vide order no. A-1336 to 1339/WZB/2004/C-III dated 7th July 2004 owing to various lacunae in the proceedings. The de novo order held that the compounds are excisable and went on to determine the valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of cross examination sought of the Chartered Accountant by the noticee and the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner about the credibility of the Chartered Accountant cannot be upheld. The Commissioners conduct in decuting from the Chartered Accountants certificates an adverse inference against the assessee and about the Chartered Accountant without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross examination are gross violation of principle of natural justice. Such orders and findings/observations cannot be sustained. The order is required to be set aside and remitted for de novo adjudication with directions to grant the cross-examination. 3.2 The Commissioner in para 22.2 of the order has concluded with a findings that short fall in prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' 6. We note that there was a specific direction to re-determine the assessable value in accordance with CAS-4. This the adjudicating authority has done. According to us, the grievance of Revenue is misdirected. An adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, cannot deviate from the directions issued by the appellate authority. Doing so would have imperilled the fresh order. Had Revenue any misgivings about the directions given then by the Tribunal, that grievance should have been agitated before the competent appellate Court. That was not done and to attempt to get the impugned order set aside for complying with remand directions is not a proper or timely exercise of power of review under Central Excise Act, 1944. It would appear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
