2010 (4) TMI 959

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 16-CE/2008 dated 31-1-2008, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the lower Adjudicating Authority. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses and Ethyl alcohol denatured falling under Chapter Heading N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 (Tri-Del.)] relied upon by the ld. Commissioned (Appeals) was 6.1% whereas the losses in the instant case are 49.72% and 14.5% respectively during the season 1994-95 and 1996-97 respectively. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the case. It is contended that even if the test report has not been received earlier, the show-cause notice could be issued within 5 years in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing 1998-99 is very low and the losses are very high. However, I note that the whole exercise of the department is silent regarding the molasses produced/recovered during reprocessing of the brown sugar. Admittedly, the molasses are produced during reprocessing of brown sugar. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded this fact in paragraph 3(ii) at page 2 of his Order-in-Appeal. The dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hifted the blame on the respondents that they have taken away the report and did not disclose the contents thereof. Obviously, nothing prevented the department to obtain the report directly from CRCL. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding suppression and clandestine removal of sugar, the respondent countered this by stating that they have been filing the requisite returns and did not....