9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer statement could not be recorded - the demand against appellant in respect of all the Merchant Exporter cannot be confirmed. Confiscation of Land, Building, plant and Machinery - Held that:- In consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case and reduction of demand to substantial extent the confiscation of Land, Building, plant and Machinery is not justified, therefore, the confiscation is set aside. The total demand should be made only on the quality of Man Made Fabrics relates to 22 Merchants Manufacturer, the duty of ₹ 7,55,161/- if paid by Merchant Manufacturer, the same may be reduced from our re-quantified demand against the appellant - matter remanded for re-quantification - appeal allowed by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs on which the Central Excise duty of ₹ 24,70,054/- was evaded by making illicit removal penalty of equal amount was also imposed under Rule 173 Q(1) of Central Excise Rule, 1944. The Land Building, Plant and Machinery was ordered to be confiscated with an option to redeem the same on redemption of ₹ 25,000/-. Being aggrieved by the Order in Original the appellant filed present appeal. 3. Sh. Navin Gheewala Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in the earlier round of appeal this Tribunal has remanded the matter mainly on the point of retraction made by the Shri. Manharlal R. Bachkaniwala, partner of M/s Mootex Dyeing Printing Works. The adjudicating authority has not followed the direction give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement. He submits there is no delay in filling affidavit, during the 6 days there was continues Holidays, like Ambedkar jayanti, Hanuman Jayanti, Saturday and Sunday, since, appellant received the paper on 17.04.1995 from Officer, the affidavit was filed immediately on 13.04.1995. As regard, the recovery of Kachcha challans and 2 Note Books recovered from the Mills which were relied upon by the Department and Commissioner in his O.I.O. He submits that apart from this Challans and Note Books Department could not examine various aspects such as receipt of Extra colour and Chemicals consumption, payment to workers from their account whether the old Machinery of 1980 installed in their mills were capable enough to manufacture excess huge produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is against denovo order passed by the Commissioner. As per direction of the Tribunal given in earlier order No. A/763/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 30.05.2012 finding of the Tribunal order is reproduced below: 9. In the denovo order No. A/763/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 30.05.2012 the Hon ble CESTAT in held as under:- 7. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authoritys reasoning of the non acceptance of retraction of the statement of the partner seems to be not in accordance with the law. There is a letter at Page No. 96 of the appeal memorandum, which indicates that the departmental officers were informed about the retraction of the statement by the partner by a letter dated 18.4.1995 wherein the affidavit sworn by the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity in his findings for confirmation of demand against the appellant. We find that the reasoning given by the adjudicating authority is not addressing all these issues, which were raised before him. In the absence of any such co-relation, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority and hence we set-aside the impugned and remit the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. 9. Appeal allowed by way of remand. 7. From the above finding of the Tribunal order the issue of retraction filed by the appellant was to be re-considered. Other evidences were not discussed by the Tribunal. The Ld. Commissioner af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. 8. As regard, the confiscation of Land, Building, plant and Machinery, I of the view that in consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case and reduction of demand to substantial extent the confiscation of Land, Building, plant and Machinery is not justified, therefore, the confiscation is set aside. As per above discussion, the total demand should be made only on the quality of Man Made Fabrics relates to 22 Merchants Manufacturer, the duty of ₹ 7,55,161/- if paid by Merchant Manufacturer, the same may be reduced from our re-quantified demand against the appellant. With this observation, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand. ( Pronounced in the open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
