9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to prove the charges of clandestine removal in the light of guide lines laid down by this Tribunal in the case of Arya Fibers Limited - 2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri. Ahmd.) and to allow the cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements have been relied on. In the remand order, the witnesses namely, Shri Subhash Goyal and Shri Rajesh Sharma were granted the cross-examination and confirmed the charges of clandestine removal against the appellants. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is having their factory premises in Chennai and manufacturing veneer and sending the same in various parts of the country. Investigations were conducted in the premises of M/s. Shyam Salona Ply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le opportunity to the appellants to present their case." In the remand proceedings, although the cross-examination of these two witnesses was granted but demand of duty was confirmed alleging the clandestine removal made by the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before me. 4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. In this case, while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority, there was clear-cut directions to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of clandestine removal in the light of guidelines in Para-14, in the case of Arya Fibers Limited (supra). The said guidelines are as under:- "40. After having very carefully considered the law laid down by this Tribunal in the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no enquiry in the manufacturing unit of the appellant was conducted and the search was conducted at the depot which was not a manufacturing unit. Until and unless, it is established that the appellant is manufacturing such goods, the charges of clandestine removal is not sustainable. Moreover, the cross-examination granted by the adjudicating authority does not reveal that the appellant has cleared the goods to those buyers without invoice or in cash. In that circumstance, the adjudicating authority is failed to prove the manufacturing of goods by illicit means and removal thereof. Therefore, the charges of clandestine removal stand unproved and in that circumstance, no demand is sustainable against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
