TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are that the appellant was engaged in manufacturing of industrial and decorative laminates falling under Chapter Sub-heading 3920.37 of schedule to CETA having its factory at Sahibabad. As it appeared to Revenue that there was some clandestine activity on the part of the appellant, there was a search/inspection on 21st November, 1995 by DGAE at the Delhi office and the factory. It was seen that appellant was manufacturing decorative laminates of sizes 2.44 x 1.22 x 3mm thickness and that almost 95% of total production was supplied to Railways, while some quantity was rooted to local market through their consignment agent M/s Ratnakar Enterprises, New Delhi. Prior to supply of the goods to Railways, the goods are pre-inspected by Railways o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....never supplied by Brite Plywood Agency to M/s CPPL, M/s Ratnakar Enterprises and Aar Em Plywood and Salmica rather the salmica supplied was of thickness 1.0mm or 0.8mm. Para 3.2, 3.3 & 3.4 of SHOW CAUSE NOTICE stated about Globe Timber Traders, M/s Gorinder Sales Corp, M/s Capital Sales Corp respectively by Basan Das Pahwa, Gorinder Pal Singh and Praful Kumar Vohra stated that their firm didn t deal with the laminated sheets of thickness respectively of 1mm, 1.5mm and 1.5mm and no supply was made of sheets of 3mm thickness/ Para 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 & 3.9 of the SHOW CAUSE NOTICE relating to M/s Sumeet Enterprises, M/s Vishal Plywood, M/s Sudhir Company, Vishal Traders have stated to supply laminated sheet of thickness 1.5mm but admitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of adjudication of the show cause. The Learned Counsel further drawn attention to auction sale notices issued by PICUP dated 21st November, 2003, wherein PICUP have advertised the appellant unit for sale under the powers vested by virtue of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. The Learned Counsel further draws the attention to letter dated 03/07/2004 written by PICUP to the appellant as regards application of the appellant for revival of the unit/one time settlement. Thereafter the possession of the factory including that of administrative office was handed over to the appellant only on 19th July, 2004, but prior to this, the impugned order was passed on 30th April, 2004. As such the appellant did not have proper opportunity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented due to sufficient reasons and genuine reasons from making a proper representation at the adjudication proceedings, as they were not having access to their own records at the relevant time, which were lying under seizure or possession of PICUP. We further find that sufficient reasons have not been assigned for denial of cross examination. In the circumstances we allow this appeal by way of remand. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the adjudicating authority with directions to pass a reasoned order, after hearing the appellant, including providing of opportunity to cross-examine the ....