AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Revenue. Tribunal in its order dated 26.11.2007 noticed certain discrepancies in analysis of documents in the order in original. The Tribunal accepted the evidence produced by the appellant to a certain extent and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication for following observations: "3. We have seen the relevant page for the said entry. Total sale shown as Rs. 72.22.250/- is the sum total of the sale of two varieties as also tax and transportation. As such, we agree with the Ld. Advocate that there is no justification by doubling the said sale figures. 4. Similarly, we have been shown discrepancies while arriving at a sale figure for the year 2000-2001. Apart from showing the actual sale value for a particular month, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner vide order no 40/COMMR./2009 dated 31.08.2009. In the said order the commissioner citing largely from the OIO 13/COMMR/2003 dated 11.07.2003 (which was earlier set aside by tribunal order dated 26.11.2007 cited above) came to the conclusion that the demand was correctly made and reconfirmed the same. The matter was again agitated by the appellant before tribunal. After examining the observations made in the earlier order of tribunal dated 26.11.2007, the order of the commissioner was set aside and matter was remanded again. The tribunal in its second order dated 24.01.2019 made following observations: "6. We have gone through the rival submissions we find that Tribunal vide Order No. A/2966 to 2968/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 26.11.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egarding the duplication of demand has been finalized by Tribunal and Commissioner has no jurisdiction to question the said decision. If Revenue had any doubt regarding the aforesaid decision they should challenged the said decision of the Tribunal. Having failed to challenge the said decision it become final and binding on Commissioner. Thus, the impugned order is being in violation of Tribunal order is set aside. 8. As regard, the issue raised by Revenue regarding non confirmation of the interest in the order portion since, impugned order has been set aside for the re-quantification, the matter regarding interest will be decided a fresh by the lower authority. As regard, the second issue raised by the Revenue relating to the adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. GCPL. As against the first submission the Hon'ble Tribunal has observed, a text of which is reproduced as under: "We have seen the relevant page for the said entry. The total sale shown as Rs. 72,22,250/- is the sum total of the sale of two varieties as also tax and transportation. As such, we agree with the ld. Advocate that there is no justification by doubling the said sale figures." For further submission, the Hon'ble Tribunal has observed, a text of which is reproduced as under" "........without going into the details of each and every month, as we feel convinced that the clandestine removal figures have not been computed correctly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26.11.2007. 2.6 As regard the demand for the year 2000-2001, the Commissioner has relied on the statements given by the buyers to confirm the charge of clandestine clearance. The appellants have heavily contested the fact that no cross-examination of the buyers was allowed and therefore no reliance on statements can be made. We note that the matter has travelled between commissioner and Tribunal number of times and on earlier occasion the directions of Tribunal were not followed. The direction of Tribunal made in para 3 of its order dated 26.11.2007, has been followed and relief has been granted by the Commissioner to that extent for the period 1999-2000. It is seen that in para 4 of the order dated 26.11.2007, it has been clearly the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s outstanding recovery amount in one month stands carried forward in the next month and the actual recoveries made in that month are subtracted. The order dated 26.11.2007 clearly holds that the amount shown as a progressive total and has to be treated in that manner. 2.9 The Commissioner has clearly ignored this findings and come to a difference conclusion. While doing so he is relied on the confessional statements of buyers. We find that no opportunity of cross-examination has been given and the test of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act has not been passed in respect of this statements. In absence of cross-examination no reliance can be placed on these statements. 3. We find that Commissioner has quantified the amount of duty pay....