2017 (5) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this demand, what one finds from a reading of his order as well that the basis for the SCN dated 26th March, 1997 was the seizure. It is in these circumstances that the CESTAT's conclusion is unassailable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH. D. NAIK, JJ. Mr. Swapnil Bangur with Mr. Sham V. Walve for the appellant. Mr. M.H. Patil with Mr. Sachin Chitnis for the respondents. P.C. :- 1. In this appeal of the Revenue, the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 15th July, 2005 is challenged. This appeal was admitted on 11th April, 2007 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the CESTAT was justifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed. After having considered all this, the tribunal concluded that the documents were not supplied, in any case, after the inquiry was over, those documents, which were not relied upon were taken into consideration. That has caused prejudice and no effective defence could be placed by the assessee. Therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated. They have been violated additionally by denial of cross examination of the witnesses. Preceding that, in para 2.1, the tribunal observed thus:- "2.1.The Commissioner in para 21 of the order impugned before us observes that all the documents were supplied to the appellants on four occasions i.e. 17.11.97, 1.12.97, 5.3.99 & 7.5.99 & therefore the non receipt claim on documents in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns of Section 11A(1) is barred by limitation, then, the show cause notice dated 23rd June, 1997, which is only issued for the purpose of seizure of the goods and not for any demand, can be sustained. 5. The respondent, appearing through Mr. Patil relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise, Andhra Pradesh 2006 (197) ELT 465. That judgment refers to all prior cases. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the first show cause notice was issued, all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the further show cause notice, the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression on the part of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X