9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments being submitted during the denovo proceedings, the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2015 calls for no interference. The question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. Mr. Dharmadhikari with Ms. Mansi Patil, for the Appellant. Mr. M. Dwivedi i/b. Mr. Amol Joshi, for the Respondent. P.C: This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenges the order dated 23rd November, 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2. Appellant urges the following question of law, for our consideration: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith interest for the period January, 2003 to June, 2005. The above notice also proposed a penalty upon the Appellant. The Appellant resisted the notice. 5. However, the adjudicating authority by an order dated 30th March, 2009 confirmed the show cause noticec-um-demand dated 5th November, 2007 to the extent of ₹ 43.72 lakhs and imposed equivalent penalty. The balance demand was dropped on being satisfied with the photo copies of the Invoices had been destroyed due to the flood. These invoices supported the receipt of inputs. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 30th March, 2009 of the Commissioner of Central Excise to the extent it confirmed the demand of ₹ 43.72 lakhs, the Appellant filed an Appeal to the Tribunal. By ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation reports for other invoices also but in vain and that the records being old, the same are not traceable. Thus, though the CESTAT Order mentions that the appellant have produced some more documents which require verification, the assessee have shown their inability and not produced any more/ new documents. This time their sole contention is that the demand is time barred whereas in the CESTAT Order, nothing has been discussed in this context. In these circumstances, I have nothing to do with the case except retaining the status of the OIO passed earlier by my predecessor adjudicator as it is. Thus, the adjudicating authority by an order dated 20th January, 2011 confirmed the show cause notice for the balance amount of ₹ 43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be produced by the Appellant in support of its case. The order dated 3rd May, 2010 of the Tribunal was accepted by the Appellant. However, during the adjudication proceedings, the Appellant did not produce any new documents in support of its case. It, in fact, sought to rely on those documents, which were already produced during the earlier round. In the absence of any new documents being made available, the occasion to verify the same, as directed by the earlier order dated 3rd May, 2010 of the Tribunal, could not arise. In these facts, the second round of proceedings before the Commissioner, were circumscribed by the directions given in that order dated 3rd May, 2010 for denovo adjudication by the Tribunal. The contention urged by Mr. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
