2017 (5) TMI 664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tes to alleged clandestine removal of finished goods by the respondent during the period October 1995 to June 1997 and consequential ineligibility of SSI exemption, resulting in alleged evasion of central excise duty liability amounting to Rs. 2,11,12,227/-. This is the second round of litigation before the CESTAT. Earlier the Tribunal, Chennai vide Final Order No.1796-1800/2001 dated 22.10.2001 had remanded the matter to the original authority for providing the opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant by following the principles of natural justice. In de novo adjudication, original authority provided the opportunity for cross-examination and finally dropped the demand. Being aggrieved the department has filed the appeal. 3. With ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provided. After discussion and analysis, Commissioner in the impugned order, has held that no corroborative evidence was available. 7. From the perusal of record, it appears that the alleged discrepancies, consumption of the raw material and sale of the suppressed production has not been proved and department has not produced any corroborative evidence to counter this finding. Profit accounts recovered by the department covered only finished goods cleared by the respondent. It appears that all the 3 units are the legal entities registered with statutory authorities including Central Excise. They are located in different places and having the separate machineries. They are also doing the job works for their parties. Their accounts are indep....