9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the documents retrieved by investigating agency were returned to the noticee after two years and that no investigation was conducted with regard to those papers The adjudicating authority has blown hot and cold on the various issues raised in the Show Cause Notice. The conclusions have been arrived at without reasoned analysis or findings. While in some cases, the adjudicating authority took into consideration various evidences produced by the concerned noticees, in many other cases the authority has rejected the allegations made in the Show Cause Notices without sufficiently countering them or giving reasons for their rejection. The interests of justice would be best served for all the appellants herein by remanding the matter b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.10.2017 Adjourned on request of Counsel for appellant to 17.11.2017 3. 17.11.2017 Adjourned on request of Counsel for appellant to 22.12.2017 4. 22.12.2017 Adjourned on request of Department to 08.02.2018 5. 08.02.2018 Adjourned on request of Counsel for appellant to 04.04.2018 6. 04.04.2018 Adjourned on request of Counsel for appellant to 03.05.2018 7. 03.05.2018 Adjourned on request of Counsel for appellant to 11.07.2018 1.2 In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the adjudicating authority has denied permission for cross-examination of the remaining two persons only for the reason that they had not furnished the reasons as to why they need Chief examination‛. Ld. Advocate submits that this was not the case and hence, this finding is incorrect. (iv) Ld. Advocate submits that in case these contentions and averments of assessee had been properly considered by the adjudicating authority, even the remaining demand of ₹ 28,01,204/- would have been liable to be dropped. (v) She also drew our attention to para 54 of the impugned order to point out that assessee had produced all documents such as delivery challans, repair bills, etc., for the movement of raw materials to M/s. Selvanayak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he guise of trading activity and the same had been manufactured at the job worker premises. 3.2 Taking all these aspects into account, it has clearly emerged that assessee had adopted this modus operandi to keep the value of clearances within the SSI exemption limits, with the sole intent of evading rightful excise duty that was required to be discharged to the exchequer. 3.3 With regard to the submission of assessee that they had got job work done though M/s. Selvanayaki at the time of visit of the officers, no capital goods had been found at the said premises. Only at the time of adjudication, fabricated documentary evidence in the form of delivery challans were produced to show as if they had welding machines, drilling machines, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to highlight that Shri. R. Chinniah, Director of M/s. Selvanayaki and proprietor of M/s. Emkay Engineering had played a major role in the activities of removal of excisable goods and hence penalty under Rule 26 ibid. is very much liable. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 From para 54 of the impugned order we find that the Ld. Adjudicating authority, on the one hand, has prejudged the matter by his finding‛ that the invoices have been able to substantiate the claim by submitting documents of movement of goods showing that raw materials were supplied by assessee on behalf of the buyers. At the same time, in the same paragraph, the adjudicating authority also takes note that the documents retrieved by invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised in the Show Cause Notice. The conclusions have been arrived at without reasoned analysis or findings. While in some cases, the adjudicating authority took into consideration various evidences produced by the concerned noticees, in many other cases the authority has rejected the allegations made in the Show Cause Notices without sufficiently countering them or giving reasons for their rejection. 6. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the interests of justice would be best served for all the appellants herein by remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. All issues are kept open. In such de novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority will also take into account the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
