TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Headquarters conducted a search in the premises of M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. on 12.11.2008 and had recovered various records vide the panchnama of the said date. Finding the said records containing incrimination qua the present appellant to the effect that appellant has cleared Ms ingots in clandestine manner to M/s Kamdhenu Ispat during 01.04.2008 to 11.11.2008 that a search was conducted by DGCI against appellant on 13.02.2009. However, the SCN No. 21739 dated 06.09.2012 was served upon the appellant based on the intelligence as gathered from the documents recovered from M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. proposing the recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 45,92,965/- on account of alleged clandestine clearance of M/s ingots alongwith the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicated vide the order of Commissioner dated 05.09.2014 vide which he had dropped the major demand of Rs. 38 Crores approximately and the demand only of Rs. 43,74,987 was confirmed. Resultantly, the department as well as Kamdhenu went into Appeal. Those Appeals have been adjudicated by this Tribunal vide Order dated 02.04.2018 vide which the matter have been remanded back to the adjudication authorities below for the denovo adjudication observing that the data relied upon for initiating the SCN was not the trust worth data. It is impressed upon that since the same data has been considered by the department to initiate the impugned adjudication against the appellant, the order under challenge confirming the entire demand as proposed in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y apparent as is also been observed by Commissioner(Appeals) in para 9 of the order under challenge. 4.1 While justifying said order it is submitted that the demand has been confirmed observing the apparent admission in the statement of Mr. Pawan Bansal as was recorded on 17.03.2009. With respect to affording the opportunities of personal hearing to the appellant it is submitted that first such hearing was afforded on 14.09.2013 and till the end of 2014 several opportunities were given. Hence the grievance of appellant of opportunity of hearing not given is apparently false. Further, para 4.13 and 4.30 of Order-in-Original are impressed upon wherein Commissioner has discussed about reasons for denying the opportunity of cross examination....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder against M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. directing the remand thereof for denovo decision while keeping all of the issues open. Direction to the adjudicating authorities below to re-decide all the issues after examination/ cross examination of the concerned officials of Government Examiner of Questionable Documents (DEQD) Hyderabad has been given. The appellant has also been directed to be afforded with reasonable opportunity of hearing and even the opportunity of producing the additional evidence. 7. In the present case also, the appellants are aggrieved of being denied the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses whose statements have been relied upon for initiating the adjudication and even for confirming the demand against him. Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenge has denied opportunity to appellants of cross examination by quoting a simple reason that no reason has been mentioned as to why the witnesses need to be cross examined by the appellant and that no evidence has been submitted for the same. But the adjudicating authority has failed to acknowledge that the entire relevant documentary evidence as could be produced by the appellant for any purpose was already taken in Department's possession at the time of the search of premises on 13.02.2009. Apparently and admittedly these documents were never returned to the appellant after the issuance of the SCN as was otherwise mandatory under Rule 24A of Central Excise Rules. It is also the admitted fact that the SCN is not based on any of the docu....