TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - K. S. Jhaveri And Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Kinshuk Jain For the Respondent : Mr. Sameer Jain with Mr. Daksh Pareek ORDER 1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal remitted back the matters to the authority for reconsideration of the same. 2. This court while admitting the Excise Appeals No.11/2011 and 17/2011 on 17.08.2012 framed following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the voluntary statements rendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act by the authorized signatory/technical adviser of the assessee Company are not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon merely because the same were ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of hank yarn as were found in our stock as on 27.09.01 by the visiting AE officers . As regards, the formation of hanks he also stated that the he had never instructed the technical personal or other officers at their Banbirpur plant to change formation of hanks. and contended that in view of the statements recorded of the Director and other employees, the view taken by the Tribunal is taken to the evidence taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and original Assessing Authority. 5. However, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of Tribunal, wherein it has been observed as under:- 5.3 The revenue relies upon the statement dated 04/10/01 of Shri R.B. Tiwari, the Technical Supervisor of the appellant s factory, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hvi has claimed that they have to produce certain quantity of plain reel hank yarn as per the direction of the Textile Commissioner, this aspect should have been cross checked but we find that no such inquiry has been conducted in this regard. 5.4 On the basis of the above evidence, while it can be said that the Appellant have produced cross reel hank yarn on some occasions, it would be totally wrong to conclude that throughout during the period from 1996 to 2001 the Appellant company produced only cross reel hank yarn. Therefore while, the stock of yarn found in the factory premises at the time of the officer s visit to the factory on 27/09/01 and the stock of yarn found in the premises of M/s Komal Synthetics which on test by the CR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods, which on tests were found to be cross reel hank. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for re-determination of the Appellant s duty liability based on the above finding and re-quantification of the penalty to be imposed on the Appellants, in view of the reduced duty liability. The appeals stand disposed of, as indicated above. 6. In view of the observation made by the Tribunal, more particularly instructions issued by the Textile Commissioner that each year they will give 50% cotton yarn which has not been verified or cross-checked by the authority. The Tribunal has not committed error in remitting back the matter to the authority. Therefore, no case is made out. 7. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
