9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions. Such charge has to be based on complete and tangible evidence. The adjudicating authority have not brought forth the corroborative evidence on record to prove purchase of raw materials, manufacture of goods, consumption of excess power, payment of additional wages and sale of the final product. The department satisfied itself with the entries in the seized records and statements. There should have been some corroborative evidence. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/438/2008 - FO/76461/2018 - Dated:- 23-7-2018 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri K.K. Banerjee, Advocate and Shri K.P. Dey, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Revenue (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary: This is the 3 rd round of litigation before the Tribunal. The allegation in this case is regarding undervaluation and clandestine manufacture and removal of commercial plywood based upon the entries in Jabeda Khata (in Bengali system of accounting Cash Book is popularly known in trade as Jabeda Khata), recovered from the appellant s factory premises. It was the grievan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority at page 11 of the order of adjudication found that the document relating to 1996-97 established the charge against the appellant. But no whisper about other years. He did not find the quantum of suppression relating to 1995-96 and 1997-98 with cogent evidence to establish the charge against the Appellant. That too even he has not passed a speaking order how he arrived at the figure of ₹ 6,42,440/- and how that was 16% without stating actual sales/realization with cogent evidence. All that he did is he acted arbitrarily. 4.4. In order to complete assessment fairly the learned Authority also did not make any inquiry with the Sales Tax Authority or Income Tax Authority to find out whether the sales returned to them deviated. Materially, if so, to what extent and reason thereof. The reason why all the annexure to the show cause notice could not be elaborately dealt to compare with evidence is not patent from the order of adjudication. Neither sellers of raw material nor buyers of plywood were examined to establish charges with reason. There was neither cogent nor credible evidence brought to record by a reasoned order to prove that there was suppress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is his contention that the Commissioner of Central Excise, who passed the adjudication order has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue as he was holding the additional charge of the Siliguri Commissionerate. In support of his submission, ld. Advocate relied upon decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Philips Electronics India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Kolkata-I [2008(229) E.L.T. 668(Tri.-Kolkata)] and also in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Siliguri vs. Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. [2008(229) E.L.T. 370 (Tri.-Kolkata)]. Ld. Advocate also contended that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellants by the adjudicating authority, before passing the order. He further argued that the direction given by the Tribunal while remanding the earlier order have not been fully complied with. 3. Ld. D.R. reiterates the discussions and findings of the adjudication order. It is the case of the Revenue that the quantity on which the demand is confirmed are the goods manufactured by the assessee which were cleared without payment of duty. The appellant s argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neers, which were not manufactured by the appellant, but purchased from the local manufacturers. It is their contention that the Revenue failed to bring on record that they have purchased huge quantity of veneers to manufacture the alleged quantity of plywood and cleared the same without payment of duty. 7. We also find that the Commissioner vide Order dated 23.03.2000, had confirmed the demand of ₹ 32,51,809/- and imposed penalty of equal amount and imposed penalty of ₹ 25,000/- upon Shri Dilip Kumar Das, the Manager of the appellant firm. Subsequently the Tribunal vide Order dated 08.02.2001 remanded the matter to the Commissioner with the direction to supply the Jabeda Khata and to discuss as to how the invoices and challans were relatable to the entries made in the Jabeda Khata and how the same was corroborated. Vide the denovo order dated 05.09.2003, the Commissioner after allowing abatement of duty from cum duty price, confirmed an amount of ₹ 27,55,386/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty and also imposed penalty of ₹ 25,000/- upon the Manager of the appellant company, Shri Dilip Kumar Das and imposed penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
