TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Industries Ltd. (DIL), Bangalore is a manufacturer of pan masala and gutkha falling under tariff heading 2403 99 90. 2. The Income Tax Department as part of their investigations in 2009 had raided the premises of one Shri Manoj Mithulal and seized certain records, loose papers and sheets which are said to be owned by Shri Sohanraj Mehta, the C & F Agent of the appellant. After obtaining the loose papers/sheets from the Income Tax authorities, the Central Excise authorities initiated investigations and a show-cause notice was issued on 1.8.2012 against M/s. DIL and several other persons associated with the company as well as employees/part of management of DIL. As a result of the proceedings, impugned order has been passed. In the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or other appellants were heard who took us through the facts of the case in detail and their defence. We also heard the learned AR who vehemently argued and supported the impugned order and the findings therein. After considering the submissions made during the hearing and after going through the records, we found that even though we are reluctant to do so especially after hearing the matter in such detail, the following observations would show that we had no alternative but to resort to remanding the matter to the learned original authority for fresh decision. We also consider it appropriate to remand the matters under the circumstances since the appeals may not come up for final hearing in the near future if a stay is granted. However, ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounted for. It is his submission that in his statement before the Income Tax authorities which was subsequently retracted also he had stated that he was not only selling the products of DIL but also products from other manufacturers which he was not supposed to do. He had submitted that in respect of products received from others, he was using the Code A and in respect of goods received from DIL, he was using the Code DIL. He submitted that adjudicating authority has interpreted products with Code A as clearances made without payment of duty which is totally wrong. It was submitted that the statement of Shri Sohanraj Mehta that one gutka package according to the codes used by DIL and according to Shri Sohanraj Mehta means one lakh rupees....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Revenue. However, no statement has been recorded from Shri Manoj Mitulal at all. He was not made available for cross examination also. The whole case depends upon the interpretation of loose sheets and the version of Shri Sohanraj Mehta which was changed several times during the period and unless the cross-examination of the persons was allowed, the appellants could not defend the case properly. The raw materials suppliers are also in appeal and their contentions is also that they have not supplied or purchased the appellants products removed clandestinely. It was also submitted that an audit was conducted, which was headed by a Commissioner and they also did not find any discrepancy in the records. 6. Even though we are not able....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ork done by the appellants during the relevant period; as already observed no consignment have been seized or intercepted while clearing without payment of duty; even though consumption of raw materials has been considered, how it has helped excess production has not been discussed. The fact of retraction of SLM has not been discussed; even though shri SLM had accepted certain income before the Income Tax authorities no questions were asked as to the what commission was earned and how much excess quantity he had sold and how he undertook these transactions; other than the statement of SLM, there is no other evidence to show that the meaning of codes A and Gutka package. The learned counsel questioned the correctness of the quantification ba....