TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri K.P. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. This is a case where the Appellants have been charged with clandestine manufacture and clearance. Initially, against the Order dated 24-7-2003, the Appellants came in appeal before the Tribunal under which a duty demand of Rs. 22,77,677.00 (Rupees twenty-two lakhs seventy-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Firm. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 79,97,269.00 (Rupees seventy-nine lakhs ninety-seven thousand two hundred and sixty-nine) on the second Appellant. It is confirmed by both sides that the Department had not come in appeal against the Original Order. Hence, in the de novo proceedings initiated pursuant to the Remand Order on an appeal filed by the appellants neither higher duty liability can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) pending detailed hearing of the Appeals. 4. Shri K.P. Singh, learned S.D.R. states that this is a case in which the Appellants have deliberately defrauded the Revenue and they should be subjected to predeposit of the full amount of duty. He states that some of the documents asked for by the Appellants relate to the persons to whom the Appellants were supplying th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder should not have imposed a duty liability and penal liability in excess of what was imposed in the Original Order. We find that the Adjudicating Commissioner has issued notices to the persons whose cross-examination was desired by the Appellants. However, those persons not being available was beyond the control of the Adjudicating Authority. We also prima facie find that the documents within t....