TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irections given in the remand order and allowing cross examination, Commissioner has imposed penalties on the appellant, just for reason that the appellant did not settle the issue along with others under SVLDRS. Such approach of Commissioner cannot be justified. Even if the appellant has not approached under SVLDRS, Commissioner should have adjudicated as directed by Tribunal. No justification for imposition of penalty on reconsideration as per order of Tribunal is forthcoming. Thus, even after failure on the part of the appellant to avail the benefits of the scheme in its totality in view of Board Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27.08.2019 and the consistent decisions of this Tribunal, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttain finality and has to go through the adjudication process. 6. On scrutiny of the SCN, OIO and other relevant records in this case, I find that Shri B.V. Kshatriya, Director of M/s Bhikusa Paper (P) Ltd. was found to be responsible for manipulating documents by showing purchases of waste paper in the name of suppliers when both the suppliers and transactions were not genuine. He mislead the department for claiming full exemption under Notification No. 83/94 and therefore, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed upon him under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The allegations on him have been proved and he was penalized correctly. However, considering the fact that he has missed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied by the principal manufacturer. The adjudicating authority has relied upon the statements of such principal manufacturers some of whom have stated that they have purchased finished goods from the Appellant and that the raw material i.e paper scrap was shown to have been purchased on their behalf and they were issued bills for jobwork as well as bill for waste paper. The Appellant had also produced the copy of undertaking given by the principal manufacturer to the jurisdictional Authority of Appellant so that the Appellant can claim exemption from duty under Notification No. 83/94. The Appellant has also contended that even the statement of some of the principal manufacturers have not been considered properly. Their contention is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged jobwork activity has been considered in their books. We also hold that the adjudicating authority shall also consider the report dt. 30.12.2003 of the Preventive Superintendent and the intimations filed by the principal manufacturer under the Notification No. 83/94 before deciding the case. The Appellant shall produce all the records and relevant papers whenever called upon to do so before the adjudicating authority. Therefore as the matter needs to be reconsidered on above points, we setaside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after verifying the facts and following the settled legal position on all the above issues. 3.2 Thereafter, on introduction of the Sabk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
