TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dt. 29.8.2007 has already rejected the application of additional evidence, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to Tribunal. - appellants agitating this aspect before the High Court on the additional grounds also needs to be considered. Therefore Revenue contention is not justified. We also feel that these additional evidences being only documents submitted by Revenue, therefore considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order (2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and the High Court order [2015 (2) TMI 232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] we allow both the MISC applications. - Appeal disposed of. - Application Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside in its entirety and the Tribunal was directed to re-consider the issue as to whether M/s.Southern Press Tools is entitled for exemption under Notification No.164/87 dated 10.6.1987 for the goods cleared to M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd. without observance of the procedures prescribed under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also whether penalty can be imposable under Rule 209(A) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 13. Since the entire order of the Tribunal has been set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the issue de novo, the present appeal by the assessee on a limited issue does not survive. Therefore, the plea now made by the appellant can be agitated by the appellant before the Tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. Beedu which is enclosed at page 127 of the spiral bound book. He submits that his deposition is relevant and vital additional evidence wherein the officer has deposed that they commenced the search operation at 9 O' clock whereas on the same day, same officer has drawn mahazar at Universal Radiators-Unit-II at 17.00 hours. He submits that one mahazar was drawn by the same officer at 9.00 hours in one premises where it is shown as 17.00 hours in another premises which raises serious doubt that mahazar was not bonafide. Therefore deposition drawn by mahazar dt. 23.8.96 at Unit-II is additional evidence and relevant. He submits that additional evidence annexed at page 140 and 143 and Inspection Report is at page 146. He submits that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue on the ground that permission was not obtained before sanction for prosecution from the Competent Authority. She draw our attention to para-32, 34 and 35. She relied the Tribunal's Final Order No.1067 and 1068/2007 dt. 29.8.2007 at page 19 of the paper book reported in 2008 (223) ELT 630 (Tri.-Chennai) and referred to para-2 of the Tribunal order where the Bench had considered these additional evidences and rejected their request therefore the issue of confiscation had attained finality. The Tribunal Final Order No.930-931/2002 dt. 23.8.2002 [2002 (148) ELT 1193 (Tri.-Chennai] which attained finality and no appeal was preferred. The second Tribunal's order was only on the limited issue of considering applicability of Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. A.R and submits that Tribunal's rejection order on additional evidence is only on procedure but not on merits. Regarding Tribunal's order No.930-931/2002 dt. 23.8.2002 where the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with a direction to examine penalty, Appellant cannot file appeal against the said order as the issue was already remanded to the adjudicating authority. He submits that after the de novo order, the prosecution was launched and during prosecution before lower court, they came to know the above documents were submitted by the department before the CJM Court. The High Court's order considered the ground and directed the Tribunal to address the issue and also submits that department relying in Kiran Kuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78-1880/2004 etc. in the case of CCE New Delhi Vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others (supra) which is relied by Ld. A.R. The Hon'ble High Court clearly held that Supreme Court has remanded the case to the Tribunal and the High Court has allowed the CMA No.2230/2008 by order dt.19.12.2014 by way of remand and clearly directed this Tribunal to look into all the issues afresh. Therefore, it implies that appellants agitating this aspect before the High Court on the additional grounds also needs to be considered. Therefore Revenue contention is not justified. We also feel that these additional evidences being only documents submitted by Revenue, therefore considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
