9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority, who would consider whether the demand relating to 506 MTs for the period February to March, 2008 were also included in the total quantity alleged to have been cleared in the first show-cause notice dated 9.5.2008. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 1885 of 2010 - A/86211/2019 - Dated:- 21-6-2019 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Anuradha S. Parab, AC, Authorized Representative Advocate for the Appellant Shri D.R. Gadekar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed by the Revenue again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, whereas, the second notice was issued on specific intelligence and investigation carried out subsequently by the DGCEI when it came to the knowledge of the Department that the respondent had cleared 506 MTs of MS Ingots valued at ₹ 1,24,57,708/- during January, 2008 to February 2008 without payment of duty. It is his contention that the brokers and traders of the respondent, who have purchased the MS Ingots, stated that they have received the MS Ingots without payment of duty from the respondent during the said period. The Director of respondent had also in the statement admitted of such clearance. In these circumstances, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) findings that the demands for the period February, 2008 to March, 2008 can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing statements of the person concerned including buyers/brokers, who have admitted to such clandestine removal and receiving of the MS Ingots without payment of duty. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had not categorically recorded the findings that the 506 MTs alleged to have been cleared clandestinely for the period February and March, 2008 was also subject matter of the dispute in the earlier show-cause notice. Also, the learned Advocate for the respondent could not produce any evidence or worksheet to show that the demand relating to 506 MTs of MS Ingots was also included in the show-cause notice dated 9.5.2008. Therefore, to ascertain the said facts, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority, who would consider whether the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
