9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the conclusion that the demand was correctly made and reconfirmed the same. The matter was again agitated by the appellant before tribunal. After examining the observations made in the earlier order of tribunal dated 26.11.2007, the order of the commissioner was set aside and matter was remanded again. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for the adjudication by Commissioner once more and vide the order dated 16.04.2020 impugned in this proceedings the demand was once again confirmed ignoring the observation made by the tribunal twice over - Thereafter the impugned order has once again confirmed the entire demand without following the direction in the first tribunal order dated 26.11.2007 and also the second tribunal order dated 24.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring investigation. The demand is based on sales register retrieved from the computer which does not stands reflected in the statutory records of the sales for the year 1999-2000. In the first remand order tribunal dated 26.11.2007 observed as follows: 2. It is seen that the period involved in the present appeal is 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The demand is based upon the sale register retrieved from the computer, which does not stand reflected in statutory records. By drawing our attention to the said sale register for the year 199-2000, Shri Dave submits that the total clearances shown in the said register was to the tune of ₹ 72,22,250/; The sale was further shown in the computer printout as bifurcated in respect of two varieties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. As such, it is the progressive total, which has to be taken into consideration. Without going into the details of each and every month, as we feel convinced that the clandestine removal figures have not been computed correctly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner to re-quantify the demand after taking into note of the above discrepancies pointed out by the appellants. Needless to say that the appellants would be given an opportunity to put forth their case before the Adjudicating Authority. 5. Inasmuch as the matter stand remanded for re-quantification of duty, the Commissioner would quantify the penalty amount accordingly. The grievance of M/s. Saffron Glass Ceramics, as regards the impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected in statutory records. By drawing our attention to the said sale register for the year 1999-2000, sh. Dave submits that the total clearances shown in the said register was to the tune of ₹ 72,22,250/-.The said sale was further shown in the computer printout as bifurcated in respect of two varieties i.e. OPEAK and TR. Transportation charges were separately shown and 12% tax was also shown separately. He submits that if the total of the sales of two varieties and along with tax and transportation charge is taken into consideration, the same would amount to ₹ 72,22,250/-, which figure is separately shown as total sale in the said computer print. However, the commissioner instead of taking the total sale as ₹ 72,22,250/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of above impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh adjudication order in terms of the Tribunal order dated 26.11.2007 by which the matter was remanded to the adjudicating order. 2.1 Thereafter, the matter was taken up for the adjudication by Commissioner once more and vide the order dated 16.04.2020 impugned in this proceedings the demand was once again confirmed ignoring the observation made by the tribunal twice over. It is observed that in the impugned order commissioner has observed as follows: 03.07 In the instant matter, I have noted that Hon ble Tribunal under Order No. A/10175-10176/2019 dated 24.01.2019 has set aside the OIO No.40/COMMR./2009 dated 31.08.2009 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd tribunal order dated 24.01.2019 . The fact of duplication of demand has been specifically examined in both the tribunal s order and the finding of both the orders are very clear and precise leaving no scope for interpretation. Even if the Adjudicating Authority had any doubts regarding what was stated in the first tribunal order dated 26.11.2007 the same was clarified in the second tribunal order dated 24.01.2019. In case the commissioner was aggrieved by the observation of the second tribunal order dated 24.01.2019 the right course of action was to take the matter to the higher forum and not to ignore the same. 3. In view of above we find that the impugned order passed directly in violation of two tribunal s orders is bad in law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
