9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Tribunal, in which the case was remanded for denovo adjudication. 2.1 The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of HDPE Containers and other Plastic Containers falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 3923.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department carried out certain investigations in connection with the allegation that the appellant has not paid Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured by them. Such investigation was carried out commencing with search operation at the factory premises of the appellant and at the residential premises of Shri Deo Prakash Rungta, Director of the Appellant Company on 10.07.2002. Search operation was carried out also at the premises of the two major buyers, vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant as well as Shri Deo Prakash Rungta, Director as well as Shri Kali Kant Thakur, Director ; (iv) Seized the goods impugned and ordered for confiscation with an option to redeem the said goods on payment of redemption fine. 2.2 The order of the adjudicating authority, in the first round of litigation, was challenged before the Tribunal, which resulted in the order dated 14.07.2006, in which, the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication with the following observations : "2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, ld.Consultant for the appellant and Shri P.K.Das, ld.JDR for the Revenue, we find that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable rate ; (ii) Penalty of an equal amount of duty demanded was also imposed on the appellant ; (iii) Penalties have also been imposed on Shri Deo Prakash Rungta, Director as well as Shri Kali Kant Thakur, Director ; The present impugned order was challenged in the present round of litigation. 3. With the above background, we heard Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, ld.Consultant for the Appellants as well as Shri D.Halder, ld.D.R. representing by the Revenue. 4. The main arguments advanced by the ld.Consultant for the Appellants are summarized below : (i) The appellant admits on record that the goods manufactured in the appellant's factory, were cleared in the name of three fictitious firms as concluded by the Department. However, he sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Year, 2000-2001 has been shown as excess payment; (e) Some other discrepancies have been highlighted in the year 2001-2002 also. (ii) The ld.Consultant further submitted that the ld.Adjudicating Authority has failed to comply with the direction of CESTAT to allow cross-examination of the concerned persons. The assessee sought cross-examination of the following three persons : (a) Shri S.Bhattacharya of M/s Sone Vanaspati Ltd. (b) Shri Rabindra Prasad of M/s Patliputra Industries Ltd. (c) Shri Sanjeev Kumar, a alleged employee of the appellant. But the adjudicating authority could not make available these persons for cross examination and hence, the principle of natural justice have been violated in spite of the direction of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mply with the documents evidencing such part of the demand; (ii) He also submitted that the witnesses to be cross examination have been served with the letter by the adjudicating authority, but they did not appear for cross examination. To this extent, he submits that the direction of the Tribunal has been complied with. (iii) He also subsequently filed written submission dated 10.10.2018 explaining his arguments. 6. The case made out by the Revenue after conclusion of investigations, is that the appellant has cleared the final products to two main customers by issuing documents in the name of three fictitious firms. The Department has obtained the ledger from the main customer and on that basis has worked out the total demand for Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this effect. The ld.D.R. for the Revenue has fairly admitted that the double entries as well as entries considered for inclusion even without documentary evidences are liable to be excluded from the turnover and may be re-determined. 8. From the impugned order, no clear reason is evident for denying SSI benefit. In the initial round of litigation, the adjudicating authority has extended such benefit while computing the final demand for duty. We find no reason to deny the benefit of SSI exemption even in the present round of litigation . It has also been argued by the appellant that if the SSI benefit is granted and the discrepancies pointed out in the quantification are removed, there will be no demand left. 9. After considering the argum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
