Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Raman Bhatia, Jai Bhawani Con Cast (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur

2016 (9) TMI 1174 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Confiscation of seized SS Ingots - Recovery of Central Excise duty - confirmation of demand was drawn from certain private records recovered from the premises of the appellant unit and various statements given by the Director, Authorized Signatory, Gate Keeper of the appellant unit and other persons like transport drivers etc. - denial of cross examination - violation of principles of natural justice as due opportunity not being extended to the appellants to defend their case - Held that:- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ocuments. Necessarily in such situation the appellants should have an opportunity to clarify their side by cross examining the persons who gave statement relied upon. This legal position has been fairly well settled by the Hon’ble Punjab& Haryana High Court in a recent decision in the case of G-Tech Industries vs. UOI [2016 (6) TMI 957 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT]. - We consider it proper to remand the matter back to the Original Authority to follow the procedure set out in Section 9d of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ichandran, Member (Technical) Mr. Jatin Singhal, (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. G. R. Singh DR for the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran These two appeals are against order dated 22.05.2008 of Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur-I brief facts of the case are that the main appellant is engaged in the manufacture of SS Ingots liable to Central Excise duty. In December, 2002, the Officers of Central Excise conducted certain verifications of records in the premises of the appellant; thereafte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty. Penalty of equal amount was also imposed on the main appellant. Apart from various other penalties, an amount of ₹ 5 lakh has been imposed on the second appellant being Director of the appellant company. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable both in law and facts. Raising preliminary objection against impugned order, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the main support for the confirmation of demand was drawn from certain private records .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d any detailed reasons for non consideration. It was recorded that statements were given voluntarily under Section 14 and as such relied upon in the proceedings. The Ld. Counsel relied on various case laws to submit that the impugned order is vitiated in view of violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order is very elaborate and analyzed all the evidences before arriving at the conclusion. The manner of keeping private accounts including parallel inv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stantial evidences. 4. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 5. Before proceeding with the merit of the appeal it is necessary to examine the preliminary objection regarding due opportunity not being extended to the appellants to defend their case. As seen from the findings of the Original Authority (para 57.17) the charge against the appellants regarding clandestine production and removal are considered to be supported by recovery of parallel set of invoice, private records, con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Hon ble Punjab& Haryana High Court in a recent decision in the case of G-Tech Industries vs. UOI reported in 2016 (339) ELT 209 (P & H) held as follows. 24. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 4.4.2016 passed by respondent no.2 stands set aside. Resultantly, the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner is remanded to respondent no.2 for adjudication de-novo by following the procedure contemplated by Section 9D of the Act and the law laid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

adjudicating authority, i.e. before Respondent No 2. (ii) A copy of the said record of examination-in-chief, by the Revenue, of the makers of any of the statements on which the Revenue chooses to rely, would have to be made available to the assessee, i.e. to Ambika and Jay Ambey in this case. (iii) Statements recorded during investigation, under Section 14 of the Act, whose makers are not examined in chief before the adjudicating authority, i.e. before Respondent No 2, would have to be eschewed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version