TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirming the demand against M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. was challenged before the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal and after considering all aspects of the case the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration of all issues raised by M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. Since the investigation was common and M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. is also a noticee in the present case, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eging evasion of duty in the manufacture and clearance of Kamdhenu brand CTD bars, MS angles, MS channels etc. during the period from April, 2008 to 8.10.2008. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant in 2013 proposing recovery of duty not paid on the goods cleared clandestinely during the said period with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that in the present case also before the adjudicating authority, though they have requested for cross-examination of various witnesses, the same was disallowed; also the order was passed ex-parte without providing effective hearing to the appellants. He submits that since the allegation relates to common investigation and the appeal of M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. has been remanded for fresh a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, the appellant is situated under jurisdiction of Nagpur Commissionerate. The order confirming the demand against M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. was challenged before the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal and after considering all aspects of the case the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration of all issues raised by M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
