9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88/2016 - 40714/2017 - Dated:- 17-5-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant: Shri P, Mahalingam, Adv. For the Respondent: Shri S. Govindaraj, AC (AR) Per: Archana Wadhwa As per the facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture MS Ingots falling in Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 05.07.06, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result of which, 818 nos. of Ingots were found in excess than the recorded balance in RG-1 register. The said fact was accepted by their authorized persons Shri P. Thangadurai, who in his statement dated 05.07.2006 deposed that the said 818 nos, of Ingots ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iting of Shri Yuvaraj. They requested to refer the issue to the handwriting export. 4. The said show-cause-notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner who vide his order dated 30.06.2007 confirmed the proposals made in the show-cause notice. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter, an appeal was filed before Tribunal who vide its Final Order No.701/2010, dated 24.06.10 set aside impugned order and remanded the matter to the lower authorities with the following directions. Since the clinching evidence would consist of a report by the handwriting expert on whether the entries in the notebook of ingots stock were made by Yuvaraj as held by the Revenue and contested by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1,81,280/-. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner stands upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present Appeal. 6. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant mainly contested the impugned orders on the sole ground that directions of the Tribunal as contained in the remand order, dated 24.06.2010 do not stand carried in soul and spirit, in as much as, the Tribunal directed to verify the handwriting in original notebook, whereas Revenue has forwarded the xerox copy of the notebook to the handwriting expert. As such, the impugned orders are in defiance of the Tribunal's directions and should be set aside on the said sole ground itself. 7. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the entries in the handbook were in the handwriting of Shri A. Yuvaraj, the appellants are pleading that original notebook was not sent for such opinion, as per the directions of the Tribunal. However, on going through the earlier order of the Tribunal, I find that there are no such specific directions to the extent that only original copy is required to be sent. Though, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) suggests that original copy was also sent but even though that is not correct, I find that xerox copies along with accepted documents were sent to the handwriting expert with the consent of Shri A. Yuvaraj has also Managing Director of the appellant-Company. In such a scenario, it is not open to the appellant to contest the findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
