9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing substantial question of law : (1) Whether it is permissible in law to consider the issue afresh in a proceeding which has already been settled by the same authority by its earlier order and had attained finality for want of any appeal against the original/earlier order, as no party to the litigation has challenged in any appellate forum ? And, if the answer to this question is negative, the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by CESTAT is liable to be set aside ? (2) Whether the CESTAT was correct in coming in the conclusion that there was a direction in its earlier order dated 19.07.2004 for de novo consideration of the issue involved in the Show Cause Notice or mere direction to compute and communicate to the respondent, Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby, the excisable goods manufactured by the Respondents along with the raw materials and the finished products were sealed on a reasonable belief that they were required for further investigation. Learned Counsel further pointed out that after such investigations, the Appellant issued show cause notice to the Respondents demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 40,18,686/- and an additional duty of Excise of Rs. 6,02,803/-. Learned Counsel further pointed out that upon adjudication, the Commissioner by an Order dated 31.10.1997 held that the Respondents had indulged in clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods by suppressing figures of production and sale and, consequently, confirmed the demand of Rs. 40,18,686/- as basic excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter dated 07.07.2005, the Respondent was again advised to pay the said sum of Rs. 7,12,765/-. But, however, the Respondent insisted that the Commissioner should pass a speaking Order. Learned Counsel further pointed out that for abundant caution, a speaking Order was passed by the Commissioner after giving a personal hearing to the Respondent. But, however, by letter dated 13.05.2005, the said sum of Rs. 7,12,765/- was re-confirmed by the Appellant. The learned Counsel further submits that aggrieved by the Order, the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the CESTAT which was opposed by the Appellants and ultimately by impugned Order dated 24.07.2007, the Appeal was allowed and the Order dated 24.03.2006 passed by the Commissioner, came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial question of laws be answered against the Appellant. Learned Counsel has taken us through the balance sheet to point out that the adjudicating authority has considered only the production portion and has not considered the fact that there was a closing balance of the very same product indicated in the balance sheet. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the adjudicating authority has failed to note that there is a closing balance on 31.03.1996 which clearly points out that the allegation of the Appellant that there was any clandestine removal of such thread is totally incorrect. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. We have also gone through the records. On perusal of the Order passed by the CESTAT, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Tribunal as such set aside the demand of revenue filed by the Respondents. 7. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the claim of duty in respect of two types of goods, one is the claim in respect of polyester and the other is Viscose Yarn. With regard to the claim of Polyester Yarn, the CESTAT by an Order dated 19.07.2004, has come to the conclusion that the demand of duty on polyester yard cannot be accepted as it does not amount to manufacture. Whilst remanding the matter with regard to Viscose Yarn, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner whilst making the demand of duty for both Polyester Yarn and Viscose Yarn had not indicated the duty separately on each of these products and, as such, as no duty was payable w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
