Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (7) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e notice. He found that even when those particulars and materials which are against the respondent No.1 as disclosed in the show cause notice, the respondent No.1 said nothing in defence. This is precisely the reason given by the adjudicating authority in confirming the demand. Thus, we do not agree with the findings of the CESTAT that adjudicating authority has not given any reasons or discussed the evidence. When there was no repetition of the material and the evidence mentioned in the show cause notice by the respondent No.1 it was not necessary to discuss the same on that account and this course was adopted by the adjudicating authority, and rightly so, to avoid repetition. Thus, insofar as the issue of under-valuation is concerned, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the said Rules. The Commissioner also ordered for confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery of the respondent No.1 under Rule 173Q (2) of the Rules with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 5,00,000/-. This order-in-original passed by the Commissioner was challenged in appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT by the impugned order dated 04.03.2005 has allowed both the appeals filed by the respondent No.1 and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. This is how the Revenue is before this Court by way of these appeals challenging the correctness of the order passed by the CESTAT. Insofar as the issue of clandestine removal of goods by respondent No.1 is concerned, we find that on the statement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en those particulars and materials which are against the respondent No.1 as disclosed in the show cause notice, the respondent No.1 said nothing in defence. This is precisely the reason given by the adjudicating authority in confirming the demand. Thus, we do not agree with the findings of the CESTAT that adjudicating authority has not given any reasons or discussed the evidence. When there was no repetition of the material and the evidence mentioned in the show cause notice by the respondent No.1 it was not necessary to discuss the same on that account and this course was adopted by the adjudicating authority, and rightly so, to avoid repetition. Thus, insofar as the issue of under-valuation is concerned, we find substance in these appeals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates