TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any protection. Due to paucity of time the order could not be recorded and the order is reserved to come up on 30/06/2017. Proceedings having been recorded both sides are entitled to get copy thereof on proper application. - E/2572, 2560/2006 & E/1255/2007 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2017 - Shri D N Panda, Judicial Member And Shri C J Mathew, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Mr. S.V. Nair For the Respondent : Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate ORDER PROCEEDING Per: D N Panda: These three appeals arise out of common cause of utilisation of raw materials procured under CT-2 form which prescribes that the goods procured through these forms shall be subject to the conditions of Notification No. 5/1998-CE dated 02/06/2000, No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the ground that the authorities below did not examine the substantial evidence but were swayed away by the respondent s submission that it has paid duty when duty-free raw-materials were used in duty paying goods manufactured. Respondent frustrated these purpose of the notifications and the purpose for which duty-free raw materials were procured were not used therein. Thereby, the authorities committed error. Similarly the quantum of duty leviable was not examined. Reliance was made on the statement of the respondent that it has maintained all the records to substantiate the procurement of the goods, but not produced for examination. 4. Learned DR reading the statements recorded from different persons summarily submitted as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further AR says that the appeals registered as E/2572/2006 and E/1255/2007 relates to the Pimpri factory of the respondent. Both are interconnected appeals. While appeal E/2572/2006 deals with certain amount of levy of duty and penalty, the respondent says the appeal No. E/1255/2007 relates to penalty only. However, cause of action for both the appeals are same. 8. Revenue s further submission is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has mis-placed sympathy on the respondent recording that the respondent has otherwise utilised the input in the manufacture of dutiable goods as well as for repair and that did not result in violation of procedures prescribed by law. This propostion of law has been defeated by the learned Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een compensated by dutiable goods. Therefore, there is no violation. 13. So far the appeal E/2572/2006 is concerned on reading para 9 and 10 of the adjudication order, the respondent says that there was an objective examination done by the adjudicating authority. His order should not be disturbed. 14. In appeal No. E/2560/2006 Respondent further says that the authority did not examine at all the information that was provided by the respondent as that is apparent from para 10 of the adjudication order. The adjudicating authority had recorded that the respondent furnished details of payment particulars in respect of the bought out items. When the materials were on record the authorities should have examined all materials to reach to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
