TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the case de novo after giving an opportunity to the appellant and after observing the principles of natural justice. The de novo order should be decided within four months from the date of this order. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the entire burden of proving that the respondent-assessee has collected money representing excise duty rests on the Revenue, but the order-in-original does not disclose that the Department has discharged the burden of proof, as such, the Tribunal was right in remanding the matter to the original authority to reconsider and decide the case on merits. Further, it is to be noticed that during the pendency of this appeal, the respondent-assessee is said to have paid certain a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial facts, available to him which clearly show that Party had collected amounts representing the duty of Excise from their customers and not deposited the same to the Central Government, in contravention of the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944? ii) Whether the Hobble CESTAT is right in holding that the burden of proving collection of amounts representing the duty of Excise from their customers by the Party, is on the Revenue, when the party has intentionally not produced certain commercial invoices? iii) Whether the Hobble CESTAT is right in not considering clear-cut evidence that party have definitely collected duty of Central Excise from M/s. APHMHIDC and the categorical statement/deduction of the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointing out various discrepancies and proposing demand of the duty amount including other proposed recoveries. The appellant - Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, who is the adjudicating authority, vide Order-in-Original dated 10.01.2003, confirmed the demand amounting to ₹ 39,74,576/- for the period 1998-99 to 2001-2002 (up to August 2001) under Section 11D of the Act which includes the demand of ₹ 10,37,391/- related to M/s.A.P.H.M.H.I.D.C. Being aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, the respondent-assessee preferred a statutory appeal before the CESTAT, and the Tribunal , while setting aside the Order-in-Original, remanded the matter to the original authority to decide the case de novo after giving a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed money representing Excise Duty, then the burden is on the Revenue to prove the same. In view of this position, the Order-in-Original has no merits. We set aside the same but remand the entire matter to the original authority to decide the case de novo after giving an opportunity to the appellant and after observing the principles of natural justice. The de novo order should be decided within four months from the date of this order. The factual aspects of the matter are not in dispute. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the entire burden of proving that the respondent-assessee has collected money representing excise duty rests on the Revenue, but the order-in-original does not disclose that the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
