9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority in para 18 of his order recorded as under: "18. In terms of the CESTAT Order, the second round of de novo proceedings were initiated and more than reasonable opportunity of hearing is being extended to the appellants before passing the fresh order by posting the case as many as 4 times over a period of 4 months. The assessee did not avail a single chance. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 33A of Central Excise Act, 1944 no further adjournment for personal hearing in the above mentioned case can be granted. However, due to change in the adjudicating officer, the case is again posted for hearing. Accordingly, the case was posted for hearing on 14/09/2006 and on 10/10/2006 at assessee's own request. On b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the appellant, the final approval order dated 29/11/1996 and final assessment order dated 06/03/1997 reached to finality. Subsequent to this, show cause notice dated 24/04/1997 and 23/05/1997 were issued to the appellant requiring them to show cause why deduction availed should not be disallowed and appropriate duty thereon leviable. The nature of the claims disallowed find place in both the show cause notices. Appellant did not respond to the adjudicating authority to lead any evidence in its defence. Present appeal is in the fourth round of litigation and the appellant only followed dilatory tactics which caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue. Law is well settled on the disallowance as has been depicted in para 11 to 19 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to the manufacture and that shall not be allowed as a deduction. Appellant made claim without any reason. It failed to establish that claims were necessary ingredients of the manufacture and deduction thereof should be granted. The reasons assigned by the learned authority appeals to common sense that the deductions claimed should have been known to law as well as to the authority prior to clearance. When there were no evidence placed by the appellant before the authority below, that authority was handicapped to entertain the claim made before that authority. 7. Looking to the attitude of the appellant by repeated absence to place evidence before the authority as well as explain the reasons of the deduction claimed, appeal of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
