TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved by Commissioner (Appeals), the various statements recorded by the officers during the course of investigation being corroborative of each other, would constitute evidence against the assessee in the normal course, but such general norms cannot be accepted in the present case, inasmuch as the Panchnama itself has not been accepted by the original adjudicating authority. specific findings of Commissioner (Appeals) do not stand rebutted by Revenue in their memo of appeal - Revenue has no case regarding clandestine removal of goods - Following decision of CCE Ahmedabad-I vs. Mukesh Industries Limited [2008 (8) TMI 667 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/250/2008 - ORDER No. A/11681/2014 - Dated:- 19-9- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional Commissioner under OIO dated 16.03.2007 was also contested before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide OIA dated 31.01.2008 set-aside the order 16.03.2007 passed by adjudicating authority against which the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 2.1 Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that on merits the case has already been decided in favour of the appellant as per CESTAT order dated 28.08.2008 [2009 (235) ELT 527 (Tri. Ahmd.)] and made the bench go though this order passed by the bench to argue that order dated 28.08.2008 has not been appealed against by the Revenue hence, the present appeal should be allowed. 3. Shri Govind Jha (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that OIA dated 31.08.2008 is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/WZB/AHD/2008 dated 04.08.2008/ 28.08.2008, reported as [CCE Ahmedabad-I vs. Mukesh Industries Limited 2009 (235) ELT 527 (Tri. Ahmd.)], rejected the appeal filed by Revenue. While passing order dated 04.08.2008 / 28.08.2008 and rejecting the Revenues appeal, CESTAT made following observations regarding facts of this case:- 4. Ongoing through the order of Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the main reason for setting aside order of Additional Commissioner was that the statements made by all the persons were retracted and a protest was lodged immediately to the effect that there was no actual physical verification of the stock, lot numbers were randomly selected and quantities were shown as short quantity; that the fabr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... memo of appeal. Further, there is nothing in the grounds to rebut the finding of facts as regards clearance of the same lot number on payment of duty, subsequent to the date of visit of the officers. Revenue has challenged the present impugned order on the basis of general observations that the statements should have been held as admissible evidence and should have been made the basis for arriving at finding of clandestine removal. We do not find any merit in the above contention and it has to be kept in mind that the order of original adjudicating authority and observations made by himself in respect of the Panchnama not being legal, was not challenged by Revenue and as such the finding in respect of Panchnama have to be accepted and appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
