9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst show cause notice dated 30.04.2014, which is based on the investigation conducted by the Officers of Anti-Evasion Wing of the Commissionerate, who after visiting the office of the appellant and examining certain officials of the company felt that they are engaged in "manufacture of manganese ore concentrate". It was also noticed that appellants were not paying any Central Excise Duty on said Manganese Ore Concentrate (hereinafter referred to as Concentrate). 2. The Department, relying on the explanatory note of HSN read with Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, felt that the activities undertaken by the appellant on their Run of Mine (ROM), manganese ore would lead to the concentration of the ore and therefore having regards to the HSN explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Commissioner observed that the statement is a substantive piece of evidence, but its retraction without being supported by any corroborating evidence will not deny taking into consideration the retracted statement. He has relied on the judgment of Shrishail Nageshi Pare Vs State of Maharashtra [1985 (2) SCC 344] to come to the conclusion that no corroboration for retracted version of the statement is available, hence retraction is not to be taken into consideration. Further, he has also responded to the contention regarding collection of sample by observing at para 29 that the procedure followed by the Department is systematic and in accordance with law. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant, interalia, mainly submits that the proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory Note, the conclusion arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority is correct and legal and therefore, there is no ground for allowing the appeal. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the records. Further, since the issue is common, in all these orders, we are deciding the same, by way of a common order. We take up all these orders, by way of common order. 7. The issue, in brief, is whether the activities undertaken by the appellant in respect of certain quantity of ROM manganese ore would result into manufacture of concentrate or otherwise. The Department has mainly relied on 3 facts, which are as follows: i) The statement of Shri B.K. Nashim, who, interalia, has explained the activities undertaken by the appellant on the ROM manganese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the ROM and processes have been clubbed together. Therefore, we find that the Order is not a speaking order and has not been dealt with certain aspects which the Advocate has pointed out including the entitlement of benefit of Notification no. 63/95-CE, in the event it is held to be a manufacturing process. 9. In view of the same, we find that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority, who shall re-hear the matter after allowing the cross examination of the Chemical Examiner, whose test reports have been relied in the show cause notice and Order-in-Original. The Adjudicating Authority shall also analyse in detail the process of drawal of samples and explain as to whether it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
