TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which resulted in Order-in-Original No.21 of 2002, on the file of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, dropping all further proceedings, initiated in the show cause notice, dated 20.09.1999. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred appeals in E/500 & 501/2003/MAS, before the CESTAT, Chennai. After considering the materials on record and submissions, CESTAT, Chennai, vide order, in Final Order Nos.1534 and 1535 of 2007, dated 27.12.2007, ordered as hereunder: "2. A long list of purported pieces of evidence proposed to be used in the adjudication of the demand is given. About thirteen are statements recorded from various individuals. However, it is not disclosed how they are involved in any offending transaction adjudicated by the Commissioner. Several events are mentioned in the so called evidences. However, it is unclear as to how they were relevant to establish the allegations. It is not indicated as to who gave the statement, date of statement (or statements) and what exactly were the contents. More importantly it is not stated in the appeal if the statements were retracted in cross examination or otherwise. The persons, firms and the documents re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....find out which was against the principle that a SCN should be self contained. He contested the allegation that the goods received by them under Rule 57 F (4) challans was more than what has been reflected in the 57F (4) challans. He further countered allegations regarding excess weight, abnormal consumption of electricity, statements recorded from the Directors of SVA/SSRM, dispatch particulars under bill traders invoices, receipt of cash through them, transactions through broker, bank transactions. He further cited various case laws in support of his arguments. In view of the above submissions, he pleaded that the SCN was based on mere presumption and assumptions and since the SCN itself was full of contradictions, further proceedings in the case be dropped." 5. The rest of the statement of facts in para 11 explained how the Commissioner had dropped proposals made in the Show Cause Notices. The same is reproduced below:- "11. After going through the facts of the case, the Commissioner found that the quantification of demand in the show cause notice was neither based on the final product that could be manufactured out of unaccounted raw materials (said to have been received fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a were planted names by SVA/SSRM and that nobody in that name existed. But in another part it has stated that statements from one Sri Jithendra Jain (known as Jithu) and Sri Chandrasekar Sharma were recorded. He also observed that the affidavit of Shri Kandasamy Associates, Chartered Engineers brought on record by the Noticees could not be controverted as the information furnished by them showed that electricity consumption varied on many factors. He further noticed that Sri G. Rangaraj, Staff in his statement had admitted knowing Jithu and that he had drawn money and handed over the same to him who was helping the Bill Traders in procuring orders and in collection of money. There was confirmation that unless the person who has issued cheques identifies the person to whom cash has to be handed over, the bank will not deliver the cash to third parties. Hence, the case of the department that Sri.K.Selvaraj and Sr.G.Rangaraj handed over the cash relating to cheque issued by Bill Traders to SVA/SSRM was not acceptable. Further, considering the finding that the department could not establish procurement of excess raw material or clandestine manufacture and removal of CTD bars, the logic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded therein qua the appellant are perverse and unsustainable? (2) Whether the 2nd respondent is correct in passing an order rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that "they could not comprehend the substance in appeal, the statement of facts are shabbily drafted and the appeal is not accompanied by paper book"? (3) Whether the Adjudicating Authority and the 2nd respondent are correct in holding that the show cause notice and the subsequent appeal are liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties? (4) Whether the Adjudicating authority and the 2nd respondent had erred in holding that M/s.Srinivasa Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., and M/s.SVA Steel Re-Rolling Mill had not removed the goods clandestinely from their factory premises?" 4. Supporting the substantial questions of law, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant made submissions, on the grounds, "(i) The Tribunal ought to have elaborately elucidated the evidence, materials furnished in the show cause notice and their value, before passing the impugned orders. (ii) The Tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that appreciation or rejection of any piece of evidence squarely falls within ....