TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed by the Adjudicating Authority consequent upon the Order No.A-739-742/Kol/06 dated 14.07.2006 passed by this 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, viz. M/s Sone Vanaspati Ltd., Aurangabad as well as M/s Patliputra Industries Ltd., Patna. Various incriminating documents were recovered. The statements of various connected persons were also recorded. The investigations conducted by the Department lead to the following conclusions : (i) The appellants have been manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e view that the appellant s request for the copies of the challans, bills and accounts of other parties and cross examination of the deponents of the statements was justified . Denial of the same has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. As such without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner, with directions to the Commissioner, with directions to give relied upon the documents to the appellants and deal with the appellant s request of cross examination of various persons. Needless to say that the appellants would co-operate in the matter and would give details of the persons required to be cross examined by them. 3. All the appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. The present Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2008 has been passed in compliance with the direction of the CESTAT s Order, in which the ld.Commissioner ordered as follows : (i) Confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 72,37,269/- along with interest at applicable rate ; (ii) Penalty of an equal amount of duty demanded was also imposed on the appellant ; (iii) Penalties have also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 Tribunal. (iii) The adjudicating authority, in the first round of litigation, had computed the total duty demand after extending the benefit of SSI exemption in the various years, from 1988-89 to 2002-2003 (upto 05.08.2002), but in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has refused to extend such benefit. Since the Department has not filed any appeal against the original order dated 24.07.2003, the adjudicating authority should not have withdrawn the benefit of SSI exemption. (iv) He submitted that if the SSI exemption is granted and if the discrepancies are allowed to be deducted, no duty demand will survive. (v) He also brought to notice that Shri Deo Prakash Rung ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to by the appellants, particularly, in view of the fact that no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original dated 24.07.2003. On behalf of the appellant, it has also been submitted that there are several errors in the computation of the demand in the present round of litigation. A view of the errors highlighted are that certain amounts have been accounted twice both under M/s Swami Packagers Pvt. Ltd as well as ledger of the buyers and certain amounts shown in the ledger of M/s Mata Packaging as payable to M/s Trade Centre, Guwahati, have been included as clearances made in the name of M/s Mata Packaging even in the absence of any documentary evidences to 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
