9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B. Venugopal & Sh. T. Venugopal Swamy, Advocates for the appellant(s). Shri V.R. Pawan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao 1. These three appeals are on the same issue and hence are being disposed of together. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s Neptune Synthetics Limited is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f material was denied by the consignee. (f) The price at which the packing material sold by the appellant is inclusive of Central excise duty. (g) Packing materials not matching with the description available on the shipping bills, and (h) Non-observance of procedure as laid down under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002. 3. The Order-in-Original dt. 30.09.2008 confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2016(340)ELT 67 (P&H)] and G-Tech Industries vs. Union of India [2016(339)ELT 209 (P&H)] has held that the statements recorded by the Central Excise Officers are admissible in a Court of Law or any adjudication proceedings only if the procedure prescribed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the fact that CBI Court had acquitted them. He also agrees that during the relevant period, it was not the common practice by the adjudicating officers to follow Section 9D although it was a mandatory provision. In view of the above, he submits that the appeals may be remanded to the original authority for re-adjudication, following the provisions of Section 9D with respect to the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
