Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2023 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 389 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTClandestine manufacture and removal - Special Boiling Point Spirit classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading 2710.1213 commercially known as EPC solvent - HELD THAT:- The issue has been dealt with in a very cursory manner without taking note of the objection raised by the appellant in their reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority has stated that no doubt has been raised by the appellant with regard to the observations of the chemical examiner. This finding is factually incorrect as this was specifically raised in the reply to the show cause notice in Paragraph 21(c) therein. The learned senior standing counsel had referred to certain paragraphs of the adjudicating order and in particular paragraphs 3.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.8 and 6.9. Paragraph 3.2 is the statement of the case which is partially culled out from the averments in the show cause notice and partially from the reply given by the appellant. Paragraph 6.5 deals with the chemical examiners report which we have also considered and held that the chemical examiner report is of little avail as the report does not address the queries which was raised apart from the fact that the report was submitted after seven months after the drawl of the samples. On a cursory reading of the paragraph 6.8 of the adjudicating order, one gets the impression that the adjudicating authority recorded a positive finding that the process done by the appellant is “manufacture”. But on a closer reading, we find it is only a discussion about certain decisions which was referred to by the adjudicating authority and nothing turns out on the facts of the case on hand. The issue in the case on hand relates to classification of a product which requires to be done in a scientific manner and such classification cannot be determined and concluded based on statements given by either the Director of the company or their employees. The adjudication order is thoroughly flawed more particularly on the ground of limitation - Petition allowed.
|