9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to judicial correctness, piecemeal appeal is no less. We have no hesitation in asserting that co-noticees cannot, notwithstanding the completion of proceedings against them, be deprived of the status of co-noticees merely because one of the other noticees has chosen to challenge the detriment and to revive their continuance, if any, in the proceedings that are already completed. As far as the other two individuals are concerned, the adjudicating authority has given a very clear finding that the evidences that are on record suffices to uphold the case against the appellant herein without assistance of the statements that were recorded from them. The conclusions in the impugned order make it apparent that there has been no examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... former occasion, taking note of their submissions, it had been ordered that 17. Before concluding this order, we would like to make it clear that we have affirmed demand of duty against the assessee for the period April to August 2000 after noting that undervaluation of goods by them during this period with intent to evade payment of appropriate duty stands established against them and consequently the extended period of limitation is sustainable for recovery of such duty. Liabilities under Sec. 11AB and Sec.11AC would also arise for the assessee for this period. Except in respect of the demand of duty with interest and the penalty for the period April to August 2000, the Commissioner s order is set aside and this appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot one of compliance with the remand order of the Tribunal but of inconsistency with the procedure for recovery of differential duty stipulated in section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. We are not concerned with fresh pleas that are at variance, with those that were considered by the Tribunal on the former occasion. Just as piecemeal notices are repugnant to judicial correctness, piecemeal appeal is no less. 5. The Tribunal had, earlier, directed cross-examination if sought for with acceptable justification by the appellant herein. We have no hesitation in asserting that co-noticees cannot, notwithstanding the completion of proceedings against them, be deprived of the status of co-noticees merely because one of the other no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) to 5(8) and 6. This evidence is documentary and is based on the documents of the assessee. The inferences therefrom are therein is at Annexure B and the Annexure C. They showed that the records and accounts of the assessee themselves showed undervaluation of the goods by them to the extent of 50%. The extent of this undervaluation was admitted by Shri Kumud C Mehta, the working partner of the assessee before the Panchas. The amounts, by which the assessee undervalued their finished goods, were received by Shri Kumud C Mehta, the working partner These amounts and the private paper chits were passed on by Shri Kumud C Mehta to Shri Nalin Z Mehta, the other partner. The workings to show undervaluation for the entire relevant period were tabu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidences. Even with their exclusion; the show cause notice sustains. set a new trend in adjudication proceedings by mere reliance on references to certain portions of the show cause notice instead of regarding the show cause notice as the framework within which the findings and conclusions, that are comprehensive and logical, must be drawn. Accordingly, we find that the conclusions in the impugned order make it apparent that there has been no examination of the charges or the evidences that are claimed to support the charges. In these circumstances, the impugned order fails to have sanctity in the eyes of law and must be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the original authority for fresh consideration of the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
