TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application of mind. This order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The order is accordingly set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for passing a de-novo order as per the provisions of law. It is further observed from the record that the appellants did not file any reply to the Show Cause Notice, nor did they appear for personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. Since the matter is being remanded, the appellant shall file their written reply to the Show Cause Notice within six weeks of the receipt of this order. The commissioner shall fix the matter for personal hearing and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant parties. The appeals are thus allowed by remand in these terms." 2. The facts of the case are as under: The relevant facts, in brief, are that when the officers of Central Excise visited the appellant's factory on 06.11.1996 and checked stock of raw materials and finished goods; they found 2100 ltrs of furnace oil in excess of stock as per record which was 5800 ltrs; as regards the finished goods there was a shortage of 36.830 MT of bars and rods. The authorized signatory explained the shortage as due to removal of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her amounts and proposed penalties on various persons including the appellant company. Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice vide his order dated 30.09.1999, which was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2001 for violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 30.12.2003 has been passed by the Commissioner in denovo proceedings. The matter is, thus, before the Tribunal for the second time. 3. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.09.2009 disposed of appeals and the appellants challenged the order before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the Hon'ble has directed the appellants to move an application for recalling the order. In consequent to the order of High Court of Allahabad, the order dated 19.09.2009 was recalled by order dated 05.03.2012. Thereafter, appeals were dismissed on 02.08.2012 by this Tribunal on account of non appearance of the Counsel. The appellants filed applications for restoration of appeals, vide order dated 21.01.2013, the applications for restoration were allowed. In consequent to this, appeals are listed before me for hearing. 4. The main ground of the appellants is that the cross examination of the w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Santosh Kumar Sahu and Shri Narayan Sahu (Father & son) They were working as labour contractors in the name & style M/s Santosh Kumar Narayan Prasad, Serutiny of records of the noticee revealed that the payment towards loading of MS Bars were made against two sets of bills of same numbers, issued for the same period. One for goods removed on payment of duty and other for the goods removed under cover of parallel invoices. Receipt of payment against both sets of bills had been accepted by these contractors. The noticee have made mechanical request for cross examination without any justification or bringing out facts on record to show, necessity of cross examination. 8. I have gone through the observations of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for denial of cross examination and found is correct. 9. With above observations, request of cross examination of the witnesses by the appellant is rightly set aside by the Adjudicating Authority. 10. The second issue raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants is that there are different quantities in the invoices as per the show cause notices and Annexure to the show cause notice. I have seen both the show cause notices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons have not retracted their statements. The main demand relates to the period June 1996 to October 1996. The appellant company contest this demand Rs. 39,87,886/- as having been raised without any basis. It was submitted that the amount has been calculated on the basis of amount which was mentioned at the back of the bill which was raised by the contractor for loading and unloading. It was their claim that the contractor used to do other work such as cleaning of factory, banding of the rods, keeping the rods here and there, putting raw material in the furnace, keeping the material on table i.e. putting the material at the required place, cutting of miss rolled, cutting of blade etc. Since the company was paying TDS only, in respect of loading and unloading bill and not for other miscellaneous work, the bills were raised by the contractor for the said work. This amount was mentioned at the back of the bill which was raised for loading and unloading. These submissions, in my view, are clearly after thought and it is clearly contrary to the evidence tendered by Shri Joshi who admittedly prepared the bills on behalf of the contractor and the corroboration given by Shri Santosh Kumar ....