TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered. Thereafter, Revenue kept the case pending to await the decision of Jolly Electronics, in which the appeal of the Revenue was pending before Tribunal and since the issue of the case was similar in the case of Jolly Electricals, consequently, the proceeding in the instant case was kept in abeyance after 31/01/1996. Thereafter, in the year 2010, the proceedings were re-initiated as the matter of M/s Jolly Electricals was remanded in the year 2007. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, thereafter, decided the matter in the case of M/s Jolly Electricals vide order dated 06.02.2009 and thereafter the present matter was taken up. And the Order-in- Original was in the present case was passed in the remand proceedings in the year 2010, after a lapse of 13 to 14 years after the matter was remanded by the Tribunal. 2.1 Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that such a long lapse of time impeded their capacity to defend the case as they have to reconstruct their files. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. E-2017 (352) ELT 455 (Guj.) wherein it was held that in case where the Revenue decides to keep the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue is seeking to club the clearance of M/s Bakul Chemicals, M/s Pocono Chemicals and M/s Shonar Enterprise are one and the same entity, seeking to deny the benefit of notification no. 175/86-CE. Ld. Counsel argued that the order of Commissioner passed in the instant case in the original proceedings dated 12/09/1985, in the case of M/s Pocono Chemicals in the capacity of Commissioner (Appeals) and the order passed in the instant case, in the capacity of Executive Commissioner are opposite. In the capacity as Commissioner (Appeals), the same person Shri A.K. Mitra has held that M/s Bakul Chemicals and M/s Pocono Chemicals are distinct entities and whereas in the instant case, the same person has held in the same case that M/s Bakul Chemicals and M/s Pocono Chemicals and M/s Shonar Enterprise are one and the same. Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court M/s Gajanand Fabrics Distributors 1997 (092) ELT 0451 (SC) to assert that if the demand has been confirmed against a unit, the same cannot be considered a dummy unit. He argued that in proceedings launched against M/s Pocono Chemicals for denial of exemption notification no. 77/1983 dated 01.03.1983, confirmed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h rival submissions. We find that Tribunal vide Order No. 87 to 92/95/WRB dated 17.04.1995 in respect of the three assessees namely, M/s Chemstar Organics (I) ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Bakul Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.), M/s. Shonar Enterprise and M/s. Pocono Chemicals held as under: "In the circumstances, it is necessary for the adjudicating authority to give an effective hearing to the applicant before passing any orders adverse to the applicants. In this view of the matter, we agree to the request for remanding the case back to the Collector. The Collector should fix up a suitable date for personal hearing and make available the other witness for cross examination on that date. Therefore, the Collector should hear the applicants and pass orders in accordance with the law." Also, three appeals filed by Shri Ashutosh R Majumdar, Sh. R.N. Majumdar and Smt. Ami A Majumdar against the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1 lacs against each of them have been allowed by way of remand by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order No. 211-169/WRB dated 01.06.1995 wherein it has been held as under: "1. All the 3 stay applications as wells as the appeals arise out of the same order i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remchand Shah, Chemics of M/s Pocono Chemicals Industries, Nandesari (6) Statement dated 06.04.89 of Shri Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar, Managing Director of M/s Bakul Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Nandesari. None of them was examined as required under section 9D of the Central Excise Act. A perusal of the Show Cause Notice shows that reliance have been placed on the statements of these persons. These statements were recorded in the year 1988/1989. In absence of examination/cross examination no reliance can be placed on these statements. It is seen that case of the Revenue on account of clandestine clearance on the basis of documents which show difference between bank statements and RG-I register is also subject to interpretation given by Shri H.R. Patel in his statements. Shri H.R. Patel was also not examined/ cross examined. In the above facts and circumstances, the assertion of the appellant that long delay of 13-14 years and failure to conduct cross examination of various persons on whose statements Revenue has relied, has severely compromised their defense. 4.3 Ld. Counsel has also relied on decision in the case of Vijay Packaging (supra), Tribunal has observed as follows: ....