TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n dispute is 1993-1995. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the assessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Flock Fabrics. A search was conducted at the business premises on 06.05.1994. On the basis of the statement recorded and other materials seized, the Department opined that the assessee-Appellants have made clandestine removal of the goods. So, duty demand was raised and penalty imposed. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellants have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 348/06-EX dated 28.03.2006 has observed that : "(1) We confirm the demand of duty on the goods clandestinely removed as shown in Annexure C-1 to the show cause notice subject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 before the same High Court. The Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 07.05.2015 has dismissed the Interim Application as well as the Writ Petition without granting any relief to the assessee-Appellants. Not being satisfied, the assessee-Appellants have filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand (Appeal No. 242 of 2015) which was also dismissed vide order dated 03.06.2015. 6. In this scenario, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order, which is the outcome of the second round of litigation. In the second round of litigation, the Commissioner has confirmed the duty as well as the penalty. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellants have filed the present appeals. 7. Wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n whom a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs has been imposed. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in the remand proceedings, the penalty has been imposed which is the violation of law as per the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Elemec Industries vs CCE, Pune, 2003 (158) EWLT 595 (Tri.-Del.), where the issue was involved regarding the clubbing of value of clearances of four units regarding SSI exemption. For the purpose, he read out para 8.1 of the Tribunal's order. Relevant portion is reproduced below : "8.1 We observe that in spite of the prayer (which did not mention the fourth unit namely M/s. Anand Auto Electricals) made in the Appeal filed against M/s. Elemec Industries, no appeals were preferred by the Revenue against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the material available on record. From the record, it appears that search was conducted on 06.05.1994 and since then the case has travelled widely for more than 23 years. In this scenario, the learned DR for the Department submitted that no further evidence can be produced as no record is available. Shri Vikash Kumar Singh, whose statement was recorded, has died. Their advocate, Shri H.V. Raghavn Iyer, who was possessing the documents, has also died. In the statement of Shri Vikash Kumar Singh he stated that he has made the entries in the registers as per the direction of the Director, Shri Umesh Chand Jain. No cross-examination of Shri Umesh Chand Jain was conducted in the instant case. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the....