9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 06.08.2002, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (CEGAT) and to quash the same. Briefly stated the facts are as under: The respondent is a manufacturer of iron and non-alloy steel and the product is subject to payment of excise duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise caused audit of the records of the respondent in the year 1994. It was observed that the records disclosed that 26968.312 Metric Tonnes (MTs) of re-rolled products have been cleared on payment of excise duty for the year 1993-94, whereas the balance sheet for the corresponding period has revealed the transaction in relation to 29049.747 MTs. of re-rolled steel. On that basis, a show cause notice, dated 10.10.1994, was issued. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35H of the Act is somewhat typical. Normally, the taxing statutes do not provide for any appeal by the Department, against the order passed by the original or assessing authority. It is only the prerogative of the assessee to prefer an appeal against the order of assessment. Thereafter, if the Department suffers any order to its detriment in appeal, it can certainly carry the matter in further appeal to the CEGAT, or such authority as may be prescribed. The second aspect is that wherever a departmental authority is conferred with the power to reopen, or review the proceedings, under the Act to satisfy itself, it has either to confirm or modify or set aside the orders, under its consideration. Under Section 35E of the Act, the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct, which it is manufacturing. If such an activity is contrary to any provision of law, necessary steps as provided for under the relevant law, need to be taken. It was not even the case of the Department that the differential quantity was physically found in the premises of the factory of the respondent. In the memorandum of grounds, the following questions are framed: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in merely dismissing the appeal without having taken the Boards Review order into consideration. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in giving Final Order having taken only the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur, into consideration. Even on close verification of those grounds, hardly there exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
