TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 20-3-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Satyapal, A.R. for the Appellant(s) Shri S. Sunil, Advocate for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein ld. adjudicating authority has dropped the proceedings against the respondents. This is second round of litigation. 2. The facts of the case are that, a demand of duty was proposed in the show cause notice against the respondent over ₹ 13.6 Crores on the ground that it had clandestinely manufactured and cleared POY, without payment of Central Excise duty, on the basis of evidences in the form of documents seized from the respondents/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention of the ld. AR and submits that in remand proceedings, three witnesses were appeared before the adjudicating authority and the respondent s counsel called for the original record to be produced for fair adjudication but the DGCEI unit vide report dated 23.03.2009 had intimated that the original records are not traceable. It is his submission that as the original records are not available with the prosecuting department, in that circumstance, the documents cannot be relied upon to prosecute the respondent. Moreover, the directions of this Tribunal could not be complied with and the order of this Tribunal has attained finality by the order of the Hon ble High Court order dated 31.10.2008. In that circumstances, Revenue is not op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal having given the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination, on facts of the case, we do not find any ground hold that such a view was liable to be interfered with in appeal under Section 35-G of the Act, which lies only on substantial questions of law. 8. We find that the impugned order was passed two years ago. No stay was sought or granted. Still, the Commissioner has failed to carry out the direction of the Tribunal, by which the Commissioner was bound, only on pretext that appeal was filed. Such conduct of the Commissioner can hardly be appreciated. 6. In terms of order of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana, the order of this Tribunal, in the first round of litigation, is the final and as per the said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
