2005 (12) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, an excisable commodity. Investigation by the Revenue revealed that the appellants had cleared excisable goods clandestinely without payment of duty. Proceedings were initiated against them. The Addl. Commissioner in his order dated 5-11-1999 confirmed the duty and imposed penalties on the noticees. The Noticees approached Commissioner (A) who confirmed the OIO. Thereafter, appeal was filed before CEGAT, Chennai, who remanded the matter to the Original Authority for de novo proceedings. Consequent to the CEGAT's Order, the Addl. Commissioner issued fresh order. He dropped the proceedings holding that allegations of clandestine removal of goods against the appellants are not conclusively true. Revenue, aggrieved over the de novo order of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (A) does not appear to have made any enquiry contemplated in Section 35(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has also not issued any notice under Section 11A as required under proviso (2) of Section 35A(3) in respect of the amount already refunded. (iv)   All the grounds discussed in Paras 8 to 12 of the impugned order have already been reviewed by the Tribunal in its final order dated 16-5-2001. The Tribunal has held that the original authority has not examined any of the evidence pertaining to the manufacture and clearance of the goods. It has been observed that the department has to establish that the goods are manufactured and removed surreptiously. The most important ingredient required for production of cool drinks is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd itself. (vii)  The findings of the appellate authority that the adjudicating authority has erred in not considering the evidential value of some of the parties recording during the initial proceedings is improper and untenable. (viii) The action of the appellate authority in re-apprising the original evidence ignoring the specific directions of the CEGAT is totally wrong, improper and unlawful. (ix)   If the Revenue was aggrieved of the order of the CEGAT order, they could have referred the matter to the Hon'ble High Court under Section 35G or filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L. Instead they have filed an appeal under Section 35A to the Commissioner (A) against the de novo orders of....