AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1050
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), parts of railway, tramway etc. (CH.8607) and parts of machinery (CH.8431). It is an SSI unit and were availing the MODVAT facility under erstwhile Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The investigation conducted with the job workers as well as the senior management and staff of M/s.JS have brought out the following facts as admitted by the respective job workers in their statements and also other corroborative material recovered during investigation: i. They receive castings from M/s.JS with or without 57F(3)Central Excise Challan 57(3) for movement of goods. ii. After proof machining of castings is completed, as per the directions of M/s.JS, the goods are transported directly to M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation and handed over on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 dated 20.9.2007 vacated the penalty imposed on M/s. JS under section 11AC and also the penalty imposed on Chief Executive under Rule 209A noting that the appellants had conceded demand of Rs. 1,32,041/- and an amount of Rs. 15,404/-. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise for reconsidering the question whether any amount is recoverable from M/s. JS by invoking the extended period of limitation. In denovo proceedings, the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 24.3.2009 once again confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 15,88,954/- on the castings allegedly cleared without payment of duty and held that extended period of limitation is invocable and imposed equal amount of penalty of Rs. 15,88,954/- under Rule 9(2), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as final in respect of the present case. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Servo Packaging Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2016 (340) ELT 6 (Mad.). Ld. counsel finally contended that in spite of this specific instruction of the Tribunal, the adjudicating authority has not been able to adduce any irresistible evidence to confirm the proposals made in the show cause notice. Nonetheless, he has again reiterated the demands of duty and penalty which had been made in the first adjudication order. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supports the impugned order. He draw our attention to para 30 of the impugned order where the adjudicating authority has noted that discrepa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of such goods only upon receipt of sale consideration from the buyers in which process two sets of documents came into existence, one set of gate passes / invoices which were issued at the time of removal of the goods and the other set of gate passes / invoices issued at the time of payment of duty. Based on these facts and also allegedly on the basis of a diary maintained by the supervisor and note books from the labour contractor of M/s. JS, the allegation was made that M/s.JS had indulged in clandestine removal of castings during the impugned period. In the first place, the Tribunal in para 5 of the order vacated the penalty imposed on M/s. JS under section 11AC for the reason that the said provisions of law was not in force dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 15,404/- and Rs. 1,32,041 and allow it by ways of remand for de novo adjudication on the question whether the differential amount of duty is recoverable from M/s.JS by invoking the extended period of limitation. Learned Commissioner shall deal with the said question in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice and pass a speaking order as early as possible having regard to the age of the dispute. The impugned order will stand modified accordingly." 7. With such remand directions before him, it was incumbent on the authority adjudicating denovo, to have analyzed the matter afresh to satisfy himself whether there was cogent findings based on irresistible evidence concerning the allegation that the assessee had clandest....