2023 (6) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER R. MURALIDHAR When the Appeals came up for hearing, the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the issue pertains to the alleged clandestine removal of MS Items. The Appellant's factory was closed during August 2009 due to labour unrest in their factory which started in July .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that this quantity was found short during the earlier visit of the officials in May 2008, for which separate proceedings were initiated earlier. As per him, if this quantity is again taken as short now, this would amount to double demand of the Excise Duty. On a query as to whether they have admitted to this shortage found during May 2008 verification and paid the requisite Excise Duty, he submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the unit they could not have received the PH Communications. It is on record that both the Lower Authorities have passed the Orders ex-parte. As submitted by the Ld. Advocate, they have many documents in their defence which they have annexed to the present Appeal. As these documents are required to be verified, the matter is required to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. Both the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X