9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection by the officials of the Central Excise Department, in the factory premises of the appellant. During search, the Officers recovered one Broker's Commission file found, in the factory of the appellant. 3. Show cause notice, in C.No.V/52/15/77/99-Cx.Adj, dated 3/4/2000, was issued to the appellant, demanding duty and proposing for imposition of penalty, and demand of interest. 4. The appellant rebutted the allegations with documentary evidence and established that the statements alleged to have voluntarily given by the respective deponents do not have any evidentiary value. But without appreciating the merits of the case, the adjudicating authority demanded a duty of Rs. 10,23,983/-, with interest and imposed equal penalty. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... element, such as, cum-duty benefit is permissible? c. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the appeal without considering the various grounds raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal? 8. Supporting the prayer sought for, Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that private records have no evidentiary value and the offence of clandestine removal has not been proved beyond doubt. Therefore, the entire demand is based on mere assumptions and presumptions without a concrete proof to substantiate the same. He further submitted that the authorities below brushed aside the retraction on the ground that the same had been sent by "certificate of posting". 9. We heard Mr.V.Sundareswaran, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Tribunal, holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal therein, were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision, by a speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both the parties. (iii) In Commr. of Central Excise, Bangalore-II v. Fitwel Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd., reported in 2010 (256) ELT 212 (Kar.), a Hon'ble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, at Paragraph 5, held as follows: "After careful perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest on the face of the order that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in passing the order impugned without assigning any valid reasons and without any discussion. By merely following the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
