9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been challenged by Revenue. Hence, in the denovo adjudication, the adjudicating authority cannot once again fall back on the very same allegation of manipulation of records to justify invocation of extended period - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/480/2008 - Final Order No. 41585 / 2017 - Dated:- 7-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnose, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of printing and writing paper. They were claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No.4/97-CE date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining the correct composition of the pulp out of which the final product was manufactured during the period of dispute. Ld. Commissioner must include the broke readings also in the determination of composition of the pulp. 6. We have not found adequate evidence of any manipulation of records by the appellants. As rightly pointed out by ld. Counsel, convincing and irrebutable evidence must be available to dislodge the presumption that a Public Sector Undertaking is not used to manipulation of records. Evidence of this kind is missing in this case. A functionary of the company, who was summoned by the department at investigative stage, was not examined for evidence. The person who made entries in the log book and maintained the records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d suppressed the facts to the department with intent to evade payment of duty and wrongly availed the benefit of Notification, hence extended period of limitation is clearly invocable for these 8 entries leading to the differential duty demand. 5. Heard both sides and gone through the facts. 6. We find that in denovo adjudication, the predominant portion of the differential duty demand which was made earlier on has been set aside. The demand is now restricted only to ₹ 4,24,921/- along with interest liability thereon. Even this demand has been made by the adjudicating authority on the reasoning that the records had been manipulated and hence suppression is involved. No doubt, the related show cause notice did invoke the entire d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
