TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the Court was made by S. Manikumar, J ) Instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the CESTAT, South Zone Bench, Chennai, dated 29/9/2016, made in Final Order No.4176/2016. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the respondent, Southern Press Tools, Malumichampatti, Coimbatore, are the manufacturers of tools, dies, jigs and fixtures and sheet metal components. Officers of HPU visited another premises of Southern Press Tools and found that they were manufacturing branded radiators of M/s. Universal Radiators Ltd and T72 Cooling system and also found that no accounts were maintained and the goods were cleared without payment of duty to M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd., after manufacturing. Tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002, held that there was a clandestine removal and suppression of facts, on the part of the appellant and remanded the case to the Commissioner, for considering the above grounds, on merits and re-quantify the duty accordingly. The Commissioner of Central Excise, after due process of law, vide order-in-Original No.02/2003, dated 7/5/2003, confirmed the duty and penalty. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, Universal Radiators Ltd., and Southern Press Tools, have again approached the Tribunal, on the ground that the findings of the adjudicating authority were not sustainable. The Tribunal, vide Final Order Nos.1067 and 1068 of 2007, dated 29/8/2007, allowed the appeals. 7. During the review of the abovesaid order, the department felt that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity, especially when the Tribunal, vide its Order Nos.930 and 931 of 2022, dated 23/8/2002, in an earlier round of litigation had upheld the findings of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods by M/s. Southern Press Tools. The registration certificate was issued wayback in 1972 under the provisions of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 which clearly evidences the existence of the factory at the aforesaid premises. The said certificate has not been surrendered till date. (ii). It is a well settled position in law that admitted facts need not be proved which is laid down in the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Govindasamy Raghupathy {1998 (98) ELT 50 (Mad.)}. Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
