9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected against the impugned order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur, wherein Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 30,83,056.45 was confirmed along with interest and penalties of Rs. 15,50,000/- and Rs. 10,50,000/- were imposed on the appellant. Further, land and building, plant and machinery were confiscated, with the option to the appellant to redeem the same on paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question confiscated by the department, were not seized from the appellant's premises and that no statements were recorded from the concerned person regarding removal of goods in clandestine manner and accordingly, the goods are not liable for confiscation. He also submits that based on the movement registers received from the Sales Tax Check Post, the department had solely proceeded against the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty demand. I also find from the adjudication order at paragraph 7 in internal page 6, that the movement registers were not a part of the show cause notice. Therefore, it is difficult to understand as to how the department has confirmed the duty demand on the basis of the movement registers recovered from the Sales Tax Check Post. Further, I also find that the movement registers recovered fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural justice. Accordingly, the matter should go back to the original authority for a proper fact finding with regard to the issues involved in the case. 6. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, I remand the matter back to the original authority for passing a detailed speaking/reasoned order with regard to the issues involved in this case. Needless to say, opportunity of personal hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
