2019 (2) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the ground that they had manufactured aforesaid goods and cleared the same without payment of duty during 1994-95 and 1995-96. After due process of law, the proposals in Show Cause Notice were confirmed in the adjudication proceedings by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai I Commissionerate, vide Order-in-Original dated 29.09.2000. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2001 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on merits. 2.2 Aggrieved by the above Order-in-Appeal, the Department preferred an appeal before this Tribunal wherein, vide Final Order No. 1289-1290/2002 dated 25.11.2002 the above Order-in-Appeal came to be set aside and the matter ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs and brokers. 2.4 The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 10.02.2015 allowed the Revenue's appeal by way of remand on the ground that the adjudicating authority had failed to consider the corroborative evidences of higher electricity consumption coupled with the statements of the concerned persons. In the de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2016 confirmed the entire demand along with applicable interest and penalty. 3. On further appeal by the assessee, the first appellate authority vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 281/2017 (CTA-I) dated 02.11.2017 has rejected the assessee's appeal after relying on the findings of the adjudicating authority (de novo), the statements of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o evidences as to the procurement of raw materials, allegations of non accountal of the same in the assessee's records, proof of transportation, payments etc.; he was not able to confirm the allegations as to assessee's clandestine production of excisable goods and concluded that the production itself having not been established on records, alleging clandestine removal was only imaginary. With this in the backdrop and without bringing anything further on record, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) subscribing to the view of clandestine removal, is difficult to sustain; equally difficult is as to how the above view of the adjudicating authority came to be rejected/deviated by a subsequent Officer, admittedly on the same set of facts. ....