9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 08/2003 CE dated 01/03/2003 and demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 20,75,554/- alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount as well as imposing fine in lieu of confiscation of goods proposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, though only M/s. Rose Industries (original appellant no. 1 before him) was denied benefit under Notification No. 08/2003. 2. Allegations against the appellant company was that it along with M/s. Rose Industries were engaged in manufacture of excisable goods viz. copper wire bars falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 which was indulged in evasion of Central Excise duty by clandestine manufacturing and clearing of their finished goods in a systematic and planned manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t's submission as well as placement of relevant case laws before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not found mention in the same order, besides the fact of time barred demand and no clandestine removal of final product, as claimed by the appellant. 4. The Learned AR Mr. Ajay Kumar, on the other hand, submitted that the department cannot be blamed for non-supply of documents as despite directions, the appellants have not preferred to appear before the competent authority to collect the documents and also they have purposefully avoided to appear on the dates of personal hearing before the first adjudicating authority and also before the Commissioner (Appeals) for which no lenient view should be taken by the Court while scrutinizing the allegati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2003 clearly states that the documents/records and statements relied upon in the case are analyzed in Annexure -B and legible copies thereof are enclosed and that in case noticee is desirous to have photocopies of such in support of records or inspection thereof, they may approach the office on any working day with formal intimation. (i) From the content of show cause notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the forgoing content of the notice clearly shows that the department had duly provided to all the appellants legible copies of the documents relied upon and insistence for such records as well as to take photo copies thereof is uncalled for since appellants have not mentioned which of the specific records are required and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist of document was provided. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant had taken this court through those documents discussed above and apart from that it is also found from the proceedings of record that appellant had sent a letter by registered post on dated 18/01/2017 through his advocate firm M/s. Ajay Singh & Associate addressed to the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise to defer the date of personal hearing scheduled on 23,24,25/01/2017 to some other day as three weeks time were sought by the DGCEI for such supply of documents but no result emerged therein. On the other hand, it has been referred in the O-I-O that personal hearing in this case was fixed on those dates and notices were intimated but whether they appeared on those d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
