TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inafter referred to as the 'assessee') and three appeals filed by the Department (one against assessee and two against M/s. Selvanayaki Scaffolding Systems and Shri. R. Chinniah respectively). 1.1 Today, when the matter came up for hearing on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Ms. P. Srija made a request for adjournment of the matter. We are not however able to appreciate any further request for adjournment since the matter has already been rolling on board for number of years primarily for the reason that appellants have been seeking adjournments. In the last one year itself, appellants have sought adjournment on seven occasions. The dates of hearings and the notings in the cause sheets are reproduced below: Sl. No. Date of Hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ascertaining the factual position. The Ld. Advocate submits that such a ground cannot have any legal basis for denying their contention. (ii) The adjudicating authority has accepted the affidavits filed by Shri. Karunakaran of M/s. T. Karunakaran & Co. However, the affidavit filed by Shri. Gnanasekaran of M/s. G. Badri Welding Contractors has been burshed aside. Cross-examination of two of the four persons requested has not been granted by the Commissioner. (iii) Ld. Advocate takes us to para 52 of the impugned order to point out that the adjudicating authority has denied permission for cross-examination of the remaining two persons only for the reason that ‚they had not furnished the reasons as to why they need Chief examination....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... excise invoices subsequently, but not accounting the same also. In certain other cases, invoices were issued , several raw materials were shown whereas under the said invoices, only final products were manufactured and supplied. In certain cases, it was noticed that invoices/dispatch notices undervalued 50% of the actual price charged. So also, excisable goods manufactured by them had been removed under the labour invoices of M/s. Selvanayaki. So also, excisable goods manufactured by assessee were removed in the guise of trading activity and the same had been manufactured at the job worker premises. 3.2 Taking all these aspects into account, it has clearly emerged that assessee had adopted this modus operandi to keep the value of clearanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Shri. R. Chinniah), by no stretch of imagination can it be concluded that M/s. Selvanayaki Scaffolding Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Shri. R. Chinniah have not done any act or omission which will render them to penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Act, 2002. Therefore, the conclusion of the adjudicating authority in para 65 of the order that no penalties on these two persons are warranted, is not correct in law. The Ld. AR drew our attention to para 20 of the grounds of appeal to highlight that Shri. R. Chinniah, Director of M/s. Selvanayaki and proprietor of M/s. Emkay Engineering had played a major role in the activities of removal of excisable goods and hence penalty under Rule 26 ibid. is very much liable. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicating authority has accepted an affidavit submitted by M/s. T. Karunakaran & Co. and held that the same was conclusively in favour of the assessee. Although in para 58 a similar affidavit and documents were produced, the adjudicating authority refuses to take cognizance of the same only on the grounds that ‚owner of premises did not cooperate with the Department in ascertaining the factual position‛. 5.4 We, thus, find that the adjudicating authority has blown hot and cold on the various issues raised in the Show Cause Notice. The conclusions have been arrived at without reasoned analysis or findings. While in some cases, the adjudicating authority took into consideration various evidences produced by the concerned noti....