9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the matter should be remitted for adjudication de novo. We therefore waive pre-deposit and dispose of the appeals; after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and ld. Jt. CDR for the respondent. 2. The impugned order confirms Central Excise duty demand of Rs.8,88,61,118/- apart from penalty of an equivalent amount, under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB apart from penalties of Rs.2,50,00,000/-; Rs.1,00,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,00,00/- imposed on Shri Deepak Gupta, Jt. Managing Director, Shri R.M.S. Tomar, President (Works) and Sh. T. Rama Rao, Assistant General Manager (Tax) and the authorised signatory of the principal appellant/company. 3. The principal appellant M/s SKS Ispat & Power Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed that the data was eventually furnished, only on 08.03.2013. The appellant on 17.03.2013 sought further time for submitting its considered response on analysis of the data furnished from the CPUs/ DVDs/CDs (on 08-03-2013), on the ground that the data comprises over 10 lakh files and nearly 21,000 folders; that for analyses of the furnished data and response thereto six months time be granted. 6. Without ruling on the request for further time, the respondent passed the adjudication order dated 30.03.2013, confirming the demand of duty, interest and penalties. 7. The adjudication order copiously draws on information derived from the computer data for the conclusion that 11,288 MTS of sponge iron produced by the principal appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if the matter is remanded to the primary authority for de novo adjudication, the appellant may be afforded an opportunity to point out to the adjudicating authority such discrepancies as well. Learned Counsel further states that since the information was furnished from the computer data nearly an year ago, i.e. on 08.03.2013, a short time of not more than three months be afforded to the appellant to submit its response to the computer data furnished. We consider it appropriate and fair that period of three months from today should be afforded. We also consider it appropriate to record that no further time should be allowed to the appellant, as the appellant had sufficient time and opportunity for analysis the computer data furnished on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
