TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned officer had directed them to visit their office again in the week starting from 15.04.2013. - it was the Commissioner s office who directed the assessee to go to DGCEI office and also required the Additional Director to conduct verification and send a confirmation. That being the position, it was not proper for the Commissioner to simply adjudicate the matter ignoring his own office request to the Additional Director for a report and ignoring the fact that learned counsel for the appellants had stated that the DGCEI office had asked the appellants to come after 15th April for the purpose of verification of documents/supply of documents. Having written to the Additional Director to verify and confirm and having written to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere wrongly shown to have been used in the manufacture in the factory and in the second method MSWPL showed that these items were sent for job work to other manufacturers for conversion into billets without actually sending the same. During the course of investigation statements have been recorded from the supplier of raw-material as well as the job-workers who have confirmed the fact that there was either no supply of raw material or there were no dispatches to job-workers. The job-workers confirmed that they actually received scrap and not the inputs such as sheets/coils/strips from MSWPL. The Directors agreed with the statements of job-workers. The Excise Manager of MSWPL also stated that they were sending scrap. On the basis of these st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter going through the chronological details of submissions, we find that there is substance in the findings of the Commissioner recorded in paragraph 15.7 that the appellants were not interested in filing the reply to show-cause notice and participate in the adjudication proceedings. Unfortunately we find that there is substantial contribution from the Commissioner as well as his office forcing us to remand the issue to the original adjudicating authority once again. We do not intend to go into all the details. But for one instance which is in our opinion crucial and important, we would have probably considered all the details and tried to reach a logical conclusion. 5. In this case on 29.03.2013, the advocate for the appellant submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conduct the verification and confirmation of the same and do the needful in this regard. The assessee is being advised to approach your office in this regard. A personal hearing in this case has been fixed on 15.04.2013 at 11.00 hrs. From the above it can be seen that Additional Director was to conduct verification and send a confirmation report and also assessee was advised to approach DGCEI office. Subsequently in the letter dated 13.04.2013, a copy of which was produced before us today, in paragraph 4 it was stated that the appellants representative had visited the DGCEI office and the concerned officer had directed them to visit their office again in the week starting from 15.04.2013. Therefore the learned counsel requested to fix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
