2016 (8) TMI 435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the ground that it clandestinely cleared 2294.500 MT of sponge iron. The period involved is 2005-2006 to 2006-2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not find the demand sustainable and therefore set aside the impugned order. 2. Ld. DR for Revenue apart from generally supporting the primary adjudication order has contended that : The records of the transporters and commission agent clearly showed clandestine removal of the aforesaid quantity of sponge iron. He however admitted that there is no statement of the appellant admitting the clandestine removal. 3. ld. Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, stated that it had sought cross examination of co-noticees whose statements were relied upon which was denied on the ground tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., no concrete and corroborative evidences are brought on record against Appellant No. 1 on the alleged charge of clandestine removal of 2294.500 MT of Sponge Iron by them as the investigation carried out in the matter does not succeed in revealing the vital facts (supra) and thus failed to prove the burden of proving the charge of clandestine removal. Thus, the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 34,67,766/- (including cess) from Appellant No. 1 without substantiating concrete and affirmative evidences such as, Transport of the impugned goods, flow back of money from entities to which impugned goods were allegedly sold, confirmation regarding the actual buyer of the goods, physical verification of stock of raw materials and finished goods, use ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Supreme Court essentially held that (i) there may be situations where it is felt that fair hearing would make no difference-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker in such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since the right result can be secured without according hearing/cross-examination. (ii) It may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that the....