TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50818-50819/2018 - Dated:- 23-2-2018 - Hon ble Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, (President) And Hon ble, V. Padmanabhan (Technical Member) Shri S.Sunil, Advocate for the appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the respondent ORDER Per Justice Dr. Satish Chandra 1. The present appeals are filed against Order-in-Original NO. 13/2015 dated 28/10/2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of PVC Insulated Wires and Cables of copper and aluminum. The appellant is not registered with the Excise department and was enjoying the benefit of SSI exemption. On 27/12/2013, a search was conducted at the factory and residential premises and the proprietor, Shri Ram Babu Gupta. The statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Mishra, Ld. DR for the Revenue justified the impugned order. He submits that the loose slips and cash transactions were admitted by the Shri Gaurav Gupta, Authorized Signatory of the appellant firm. It is the submission of Ld. DR that the investigation was made from various buyers as well as transporters. On the basis of their statements a clear cut case had been made out by the Department for clandestine removal. Further, he submits that Shri Ram Babu Gupta had already admitted the clandestine removal at the time of decoding of the entries made in the ledgers. One of the buyers, M/s Vardhman Wire Drawing (VWD) in their statement dated 27/12/2013 has admitted that there was material which was obtained wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, be vitiated in law and on facts. 12. Once discretion, to be judicially exercised is, thus conferred, by Section 9D, on the adjudicating authority, it is self-evident inference that the decision flowing from the exercise of such discretion, i.e. the order which would be passed, by the adjudicating authority under Section 9D, if he chooses to invoke clause (a) of sub-section (1) thereof, would be pregnable to challenge. While the judgment of the Delhi High Court in J K Cigarettes Ltd. (supra) holds that the said challenge could be ventilated in 4 of 10 CWP No.12747 of 2016 appeal, the petitioner has also invited attention to an unreported short order of the Supreme Court in UOI and another vs. GTC India and others in SLP ( C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
