TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant's Right to Fair Hearing Emphasized in Review of Evidence</h1> The judgment directed the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine Annexure 'C' with Annexure 'A' and review the evidence related to the 6 invoices, ensuring ... Duty demand - Imposition of penalty - Shortage of finished goods - Held that:- 10 invoices as mentioned in the Annexure ‘C’ were also mentioned in the Annexure ‘A’ to the show cause notice. It is noticed that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the submission of the appellant in respect of the 6 invoices on the basis of certain documents collected from the appellant. In any event, the appellant should be given an opportunity to produce the evidence in respect of the 6 invoices. - Adjudicating Authority is required to re-examine the Annexure ‘C’ with Annexure ‘A’ - Appeal disposed of. Issues Involved:Detection of shortage of finished goods during a factory visit leading to demand of duty, imposition of penalty, and confirmation of demand by Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals).Detailed Analysis:The judgment pertains to a case where the appellants, engaged in manufacturing Plastic Drums and Plastic Carbouys, were visited by Central Excise Officers who detected a shortage of finished goods on a specific date. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty, imposed a penalty, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order.The Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the demand of duty was based on certain invoices mentioned in Annexure 'C' to the show cause notice. However, the Counsel contended that these invoices were already covered in Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice where the demand was confirmed. Additionally, it was highlighted that the demand for goods from 6 other invoices, not sold by the appellant, was not considered by the lower authorities.On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the appellant did not raise this issue before the lower authorities. It was asserted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had provided detailed findings on the confirmation of demand related to the 6 invoices mentioned in Annexure 'C'.The judgment observed that the 10 invoices in Annexure 'C' were also listed in Annexure 'A' of the show cause notice. Despite the rejection of the appellant's submission regarding the 6 invoices by the Commissioner (Appeals), it was deemed necessary to provide the appellant with an opportunity to present evidence for these invoices. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to re-examine Annexure 'C' with Annexure 'A' and review the evidence related to the 6 invoices, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant before issuing any order.In conclusion, the judgment directed the Adjudicating Authority to thoroughly examine Annexure A and C of the show cause notice, along with the evidence concerning the 6 invoices, in compliance with the law. It emphasized the importance of granting the appellant a proper opportunity for a hearing before any final decision is made, thereby disposing of the appeal accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
