TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Central Excise conducted certain verification in the premises of the appellant's unit. They have also conducted physical stock taking of finished goods lying in the premises. The total of 2463.305 KG of final products, branded as well as unbranded, were found, these were seized on the reasonable belief that these are unaccounted goods entitled for non-duty paid clearance. The officers also recovered two note books containing certain hand written details. Statements were recorded from the proprietor of the appellant firm. On completion of investigation, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand and recover Central Excise duty of Rs. 37,13,374/- and also to impose penalties under various Rules. The case was adjudicated vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.10.2009 was passed by the original authority. He confirmed Central Excise demand of Rs. 31,47,253/- and imposed equal amount of penalty in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal in the first round of litigation specifically remanded the matter to examine the issued agitated by the appellant. Even in the second round adjudication, these issues have not been dealt with and summary findings have been recorded by the original authority. In essence, he contested the case against the appellant on various grounds. The main points are a) the appellants do not possess capacity to manufacture such huge quantity of final ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perused the appeal records. We note that in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal remanded the matter for a specific finding with reference to capacity of production of the appellant, the consumption of power during the relevant period, trading in enameled copper wire purchased from M/s Sherul Insulation. These aspects were directed to be examined afresh for a specific finding by the adjudicating authority. On careful perusal of the present impugned order, we note that specific findings in all these issues are still lacking. Regarding production capacity, the original authority rather went into the details of suppliers invoices with reference to machinery produced by the appellant. It was observed by lower authority that the delivery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings on the ground that the proprietor in his statement accepted ownership of the note books. We note that the statement given on 11.07.1997 by the proprietor was retracted on the next day before the Magistrate. The cross examination of witness to punchnama during the course of personal hearing brought out the defense of the appellant to the effect that these witnesses signed the puchnama at Arjun Gali. It is the appellant's case that M/s Sherul Insulation is located many kilometers away from the appellant's unit. We also note that the SSI exemption was sought to be denied to the appellant only on the ground that they have manufactured wire with branded name of others. Except the submission of proprietor and certain invoices, no other veri....