2004 (6) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri T.K. Kar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Jain, Member (T)]. -  The present appeal is directed against the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong by M/s. Jellalpore Tea Estate (here-in-after called 'the appellant company'. In the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner has confirmed a demand of Rs. 16,09,687.00 (Rupees sixteen lakh nine thousand six hundred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n expansion of more than 25% on 30-9-2000 and therefore, the appellant company was entitled to refund of duty with effect from 1-10-2000. In his Order, the Assistant Commissioner has mentioned that the sanction of the refund is provisional. 1.2 A show cause notice dated 6-8-2000 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong under Section 11A of the Central Excise, 1944, that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1944. No penalty was imposed as there was no deliberate evasion of the duty. The above Order of the Commissioner is in challenge in this appeal. 2. We have heard Shri K.K. Bhattacharjee, Consultant for the appellant company. He submits that the Commissioner's Order is void ab initio. The proper course of the Commissioner, if he is not satisfied with the Order of the Assistant Commissi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and in the Order-in-Original, it has been stated that the appellant company suppressed the actual installed capacity by furnishing fabricated documents, but did not identify which were these documents. In view of the above, learned Consultant submits that the whole exercise was carried on basing upon presumption and assumption only. 3. We have also heard Shri T.K. Kar, learned S.D.R. for ....