TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority to pass appropriate order. The remand order is reproduced as under: "1.5 in the aforesaid Order No. S-102-107 & A-165- 170/Kol/2004 dated 17.2.04 in the matter of M/s Camco Steels Pvt. Ltd. & Others, the Hon'ble CESTAT, in respect of trading activity, order, in Para-4 and to quote: "4. We also find force in the appellant's contentions that it is the entire clearance as reflected in the balance sheet, including the trading items, on which the demand has been confirmed. The evidence produced by the appellants have convinced us that such traded items were reflected in the sales tax returns, which stand duly seized by the proper officers and on which sales tax was paid by the appellants. As such the Commissioner should have looke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on'ble CESTAT. There was a clear direction from Hon'ble CESTAT in earlier proceeding that the plea of trading activity should be considered by the Commissioner while deciding the case afresh. Ld. Advocate further submits that the entire record of trading activity conducted by the appellant was made available to the adjudicating authority. He directed the jurisdictional Central Excise Office of Danapur to verify all the transactions relating to trading activities of the appellant pursuant to letter dated 12.10.2006. The Supdt., Danapur in various correspondent with the applicant asked them to furnish purchase order and other related documents evidencing the trading of goods. The appellant submitted that most of the orders were being received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed out from its office in Patna and hence there can be no liability of Central Excise duty at all and in absence of manufacture of finished excisable goods from the sponge iron as well as waste and scrap bought and sold in the course of trading. The question of liability to Central Excise duty does not at all arise and impugned order is perverse and unjustified. The ld. Advocate further states that the trading activity is duly incorporated in the profit and loss account and the financial accounts of the appellant and the balance sheet also. The appellant has also filed the income tax and sales tax return for the respective years, which have been duly verified and accepted by the authorities concerned and, therefore, it is not open to the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bit and appellant paid the same under coercion and duress for which there was neither a show cause notice permissible to the issued nor any adjudication to be made in view of the statutory provisions under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. These demands have been confirmed by the Additional Commissioner as adjudicating authority and the same was set aside in appeal. Therefore it was not permissible to include such demand in the impugned order. 5. In view of above the ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant states that there is no justification on imposition of any penalty and interest thereon. It was also stated that as there was no cause against the appellant imposition of penalty on Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta (Appellant No. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no justification of raising the demand, considering that the appellant has indulged in clandestine manufactured goods. It is also on record that the adjudicating authority has not allowed cross examination of the investigating officer, who has prepared the investigation report against the assessee on the basis of resumed documents from their factory and office premises. The denial of cross-examination is not permissible under Section 9D (i) of the Central Excise Act as held in the following cases : (i) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE, Kolkata-II - 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC); (ii) Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P&H); (iii) CCE, Delhi Vs. Kuber Tobacco India Ltd. - 2016 (338) ELT 113 (Tri.-Del). We al....