TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued any show cause notice to the assessee and they were also not heard by him and therefore, the Orders-in-Appeal were passed without observing the principles of natural justice – thus, the Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are bad in law – the matter remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case afresh - Decided in favour of Assessee. - APPEAL NO.E/A/477/2011 & APPEAL NO.E/A/876/2011 - ORDER NO.A-170-171/KOL/2013 - Dated:- 21-6-2013 - DR. I.P. LAL, J. For the Appellant: SHRI M. K. GUHA NEOGI, ADVOCATE For the Respondent: SHRI S. CHAKRABORTY, A.R.( ASSTT. COMMR.) JUDGEMENT Two separate Appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal Nos.102/KOL-III/2011 dated 09.03.2011 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings against the same Order-in-Original. He also contested the assessee s case by stating that seizure of the goods in this case was not justified, as the finished goods were lying in the premises of the factory at packing section. So far as the clandestine clearance is concerned, he submits that the quantity shown in the Card recovered from security section relates to loading of the goods and entries in GP-I relate to removal of the goods. The mismatch between the two documents is on account of the fact that they made the entry in the Cards, as soon as the goods are loaded in the lorry, while as the gate pass is prepared, when lorry leaves the factory. He further states that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the Order dated 09.03.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the Order of the Adjudicating Authority to the extent that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the release of the absolutely confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/-, confirmed the demand of Rs.19,433/- and reduced the penalty from Rs.3.00 lakh to Rs.50,000/-. It is the contention of the ld. Consultant, which the ld. AR also conceded, that on the same issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed another Order with a separate finding, wherein he upheld the Order of the Assistant Commissioner s Order dated 25.03.10. To this extent, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and two separate Orders passed by him, are contradictory to each other. I also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing the Departmenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
