TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been provided nor the reasons attributable under section 9D were recorded - appellant-noticee should be provided with all the documents which were recovered from their premises and also be provided fair opportunity to defend their case. The matter remanded back to the original adjudicating authority with the direction to decide the case afresh following the provisions of section 9D - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/53034,53037/2016, ,E/50022,50023,50220-50222 /2017 E/50224,50255,50388 & 51176 /2017 - 50923-50933/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri N K Sharma, Shri Ramesh Goel, Shri Monish Panda, Shri Amit Kumar Bhattacharya and Shri R K V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alties on other appellants in terms of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the main appellant submitted that proceedings by the original authority are seriously in violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the case against the appellant is main l y based on various statements and certain documents. The appellants did receive all the duty paid inputs and duly used for manufacture of dutiable final products. They did maintain all records. The present case heavily relied on the statements to corroborate the allegations of Revenue regarding the improper documents or non receipt of inputs in the factory. To support their evidence, the appellants have pleaded for cross examination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not defend their case due to non - availability of the documents. He prays for supply of the documents so that they can file effective defence. Learned Counsel also pleaded that an opportunity of personal hearing may be granted to the appellant. 4. Learned AR defending the impugned order submitted that case has been made against the main appellant based on various corroborative evidence. The findings are elaborate and clear. 5. We have heard Shri N K Sharma, Shri Ramesh Goel, Shri Monish Panda, Shri Amit Kumar Bhattacharya and Shri R K Verma, learned advocates/CA for the appellants and Shri R K Mishra, learned DR for the Revenue and perused the appeal records. 6. As recorded above, the appellants are aggrieved by violation of princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
