TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicated through Order-in-Original No.35/Collector/95 dated 18.04.1995 passed by Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Meerut. Aggrieved by the said order, present appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal decided the said Appeal bearing No.C/411,412,415,469 & 261/95-B through Final Order No.267-271/04B dated 23.03.2004. The relevant directions in the said Final Order are reproduced bellow:- "6. We have carefully considered the submissions. The learned Senior Advocate has heavily relied on Order No.16/93 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bangalore, whereby goods similar to the seized goods involved in the instant case were held to be items other than watch cases and not liable to confiscation. That order was pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hari and Sunil Kothari was rejected as irrelevant by the adjudicating authority. However, their relevance was noted by the Collector of Customs in the impugned Order vide para (47.2) thereof. para (47.2) reads:- "Shri M. Srinivas, Managing Director, KHL was alleged that he, at the time of HMT officers visit was present at Munnier S. A., France (Munnier in short). He offered to HMT, Ranibagh (WFR in short), vide his quotation No. KHL/HMT/89-90/05-18, referred to in HMT s Purchase Order No. I-3594 dated 10.06.89, to supply the models manufactured by the aforesaid French company knowing that his unit did not have the know-how nor the technology to manufacture such IB cases. He, in the month of July 1989 alongwith Shri Nagin Kothari again vis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the funds was Nagin Kothari and/or Sunil Kothari who, on more than one occasion, visited Munnier along with M. Srinivas. It was preposterous to say that M. Srinivas had met the said Chandulal, if any, only on one occasion when he had procured goods worth over Rs. 4.5 Crores and did not even know the address nor the capacity in which Chandulal represented the four firms (fictitious) from which IB cases were reportedly purchased. Further, the claim of Shri C.N. Anand of KHL did not stand to reason that blanks could be imported and finishing was done in India. In case this was true, which did not appear possible, as none of the supplier firms were in existence and KHL would have definitely received the goods under Central Excise gate passes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amine the two persons must be given to the party. 8. For the reasons we have recorded, the impugned order is set aside and these appeals are allowed by way of remand. The jurisdictional Commisisoner is directed to adjudicate the case afresh in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice as well as in terms of this order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any view on the substantive issues involved in the case and that all such issues are left open to be decided upon by the adjudicating authority." Subsequently impugned Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2011 was passed. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in para-12 of the impugned Order....