9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is without corroboration of any other evidence. The statements given by third party cannot be accepted when they are not cross-examined by the adjudicating authority, particularly, when the appellant had made specific request for the same - there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the adjudicating Commissioner - the matter needs to be remanded to the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal copies of documents. On detailed investigation, a show-cause notice dated 18/10/1994 was issued demanding Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 40,68,585.32 under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty proposed in the show-cause notice and also imposed penalties and demanded interest under Section 11AB. Being aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under Section 11AC and 11AB respectively. The period of alleged offence involved from 01/09/1989 to 31/03/1992. She submits that at that relevant time both the provisions of Section 11AB and 11AC were not in existence therefore, the same should not have been invoked either in the show-cause notice or in the adjudication order. In this regard she placed reliance on the following judgements: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h sides. We find that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel that various submissions and explanations on the basis of records made before the Commissioner was not considered. In the impugned order in para 33 and 36, the Ld. Commissioner has recorded the statements of the appellant but did not give any findings. It is also observed that the entire demand is merely based on the submissions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in the impugned order. This issue has been settled in the various judgements including the judgements of Marcandy Prasad Ramakrishna Prasad (supra) held by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The issue was also clarified by the Board in the Circular dated 26/06/2002. 5. In view of the legal position, we set aside the penalty and interest demanded under Section 11AB 11AC respectively. All other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
