TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially, the Commissioner had passed the order on 20-10-1994 whereby the demand of ₹ 1,14,94,381/- was confirmed against the appellants while imposing penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs. In appeal against the same, the Tribunal had set aside the said order and had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-determination of the demand on the terms set out in the said order of the Tribunal and in accordance with the provisions of law. Pursuant to the remand, the Commissioner passed the order dated 30-7-2004 and confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,14,94,381/-. Being dissatisfied, the matter was again carried in appeal before this Tribunal and by order dated 13-8-2007, the Tribunal set aside the said order of the Commissioner and remanded the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermined based on reasonably acceptable and relevant material, and could not be based on selected purchase invoices as has been adopted in the impugned order. Therefore, we hold that duty demand in this case needs to be re-determined by taking into consideration purchase bills which are relevant to the material period, taking into consideration for the relevant variety of fabrics the relevant variety of yarn price, TECOYA Trend prices of yarn for the relevant variety and period could also be reasonably taken into consideration in the re-computation of the demand. Having so observed, the Tribunal, thereafter held that : Therefore, it is held that the appellants are liable to pay the differential duty, but, the basis for its quantifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) As per para 22 of the OIO dated 29-7-04 the statistical data was amalgamated with Tekoya Trend basis. This amalgamation of statistical data and Tekoya Trend was not given to the assessee, (b) To follow directions of Hon ble CESTAT order dated 4-8-98, and (c) To give information which is being relied upon for arriving at differential duty payable. 9. Para 27 refers to the first direction of the Tribunal s order and elaboration of such direction. Para 37 and 38 make reference to Annexure E to the show-cause notice and yarn purchase bills of the merchant manufacturers. The Annexure E is a statement showing yarn prices of different varieties and types. It refers to bills and invoices of the year 1987, 1988 and 1989. That was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier was found inadequate by the Tribunal and hence the matter was again remanded to the authority to carry out proper exercise based on the relevant evidence. The order, rather than complying with the said direction of the Tribunal, discloses total defiance of the direction issued by the Tribunal. 10. The Commissioner ought to have realised that the matter was remanded second time to the Commissioner for the purpose of proper adjudication on the basis of relevant evidence. Being so, he should have taken utmost care when he was referring to the relevant evidence while determining the quantum of duty liability of the appellant in the matter. However, the impugned order nowhere discloses such exercise having been done by the Commissioner. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . From this it is observed that duty has not been determined on the basis of selected purchase invoices. The duty has actually been determined on the basis of reasonably acceptable and relevant material, for example, (a) for 150 D the average yarn price taken by the deptt. is ₹ 158/- per kg. whereas the average yarn price arrived after considering yarn price of Textile Commissioner is ₹ 158.33 per kg. and avg price as per Tecoya Trend is ₹ 156.51 per kg. (b) In case of 2/40 s PV yarn the deptt. considered the price of ₹ 99.50 per kg. whereas the price as per Textile Commr. is ₹ 99.51 and that of Tecoya Trend is ₹ 96.16 per kg. (c) In case of 2/32 s PV yarn the price considered by the deptt. is ₹ 105 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he last sentence of the above quoted para clearly discloses contemptuous approach on the part of the Commissioner. Once the Tribunal has held that the reasonings given by the Commissioner for arriving at the quantification were not acceptable, the Commissioner, on remand, had no business to observe that he was in full agreement with the reasonings given by his predecessor. The order passed by the predecessor was not in existence in the eyes of law once it was set aside by the Tribunal. Besides to say that he was fully in agreement with the reasoning of an order which has been set aside by the higher authority is certainly an act of insubordination.; Shri S.L. Meena, Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III, while passing the above order s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
