9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts or otherwise. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was also not considered properly - it is fit to remand back the case to the adjudicating authority to consider the case afresh after granting the opportunity of cross examining the persons who were not made available for cross examination as well as examining the record and accounts of the Appellant as to how the alleged jobwork activity has been considered in their books - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/3077, 3078/06 - A/85191-85192/2018 - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri A.B. Nawal, Cost Accountant Sanandan Khairnar, Advocate for Appellant Shri S.V. Nair, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable as the time bar aspect was not examined by the adjudicating authority. That the period involved in the present case is 1997 98 to Feb 2001 whereas for the earlier period there eligibility to claim benefit of exemption notification No. 83/94 was allowed by the Asstt. Commissioner vide Order dt. 11.06.98 and which was not appealed against by the department, has reached finality. That the officer had recorded the statement of manufacturers of corrugated boxes i.e the principal manufacturers who had sent them raw material (paper scrap) for job work wherein the said principal manufacturer had refused sending of raw material for jobwork and instead stated that they have purchase paper on outright basis. However the said persons were not mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant has also contended that even the statement of some of the principal manufacturers have not been considered properly. Their contention is that since the principal manufacturer were nor produced for cross examination, their statement cannot be relied upon and that the case should have been decided on the basis of verification of the accounts which clearly shows that they have undertaken job work activity. The Appellant has also relied upon the report dt. 30.12.2003 of the Superintendent (Preventive) to show that the said report is as not considered whereas it clearly shows the independent nature of job work by them, hence the said clearance cannot be considered as their clearances. Further they have also requested for considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
