TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... These appeals are directed against impugned Order-In-Original No. AHM-EXCUS-002-COMMR-014-14-15 dtd. 21.10.2014. Appellants-assessee have filed appeals against confirmation of duty demand, fine and penalties, whereas the Department is in appeal on the ground that Ld. Commissioner should have ordered appropriation of the amount of Rs. 1 crore deposited by the assessee at the time of investigation and enforcement of bond and encashment of the Bank Guarantee towards redemption fine and penalty and further that the penalty imposed under Rule 25 should have been imposed under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC. Since all the appeals are filed against the same impugned order, they are taken up for disposal by this common order. 1.1 The facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation, Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order confirmed the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 62,41,582/ and held the goods to be liable for confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. As the goods had been provisionally released he imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,26,24,560/- . He imposed the penalty of Rs. 62,41,582/- on assessee and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 on Shri Malav G. Patel under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved, the assessee and revenue are before this Tribunal. 2. Shri J.C. Patel learned counsel with Shri Rahul Gajera Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submits that mere non -entry of the final products and waste and scrap in Daily Stock register cannot make the goods liable to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in any event, mere non-entry of the goods in Daily Stock Register does not mean that the appellants have not accounted for the goods within the meaning of Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. When goods are physically available in the factory, it cannot be said that the manufacturer has not accounted for the goods, since the phrase "accounting for" is not synonymous with "entering into the account" and it only means that the manufacturer is able to show the presence of the goods or to provide explanation in absence of the goods. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- CCE Vs. Continetal Chemicals - 2002(140)ELT 116 Nilesh Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE -2003(162)ELT 553 CCE Vs. Amrut Ceramics -2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Adjudicating authority, in this regard we reproduced the relevant grounds raised in the appeal:- "13. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority is in utter violation to the principles of natural justice, as the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the submissions made by the appellant. It was obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to have dealt with all the submissions made by the appellant and in case he did not agree to the same, the same should have been negated by reasoning. The impugned order is thus violative of principles of natural justice and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. The adjudicating authority in para 22 of the impugned order has clearly recorded t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... some evidence on record. Thus, the findings of the adjudicating authority are not based on any material fact and accordingly is not sustainable." We have examined the impugned order in view of the above submissions made by the appellant and found that the adjudicating authority has not considered the vital submissions made above by the appellant. Therefore, in our view the principle of natural justice has not been complied with by the adjudicating authority. 4.2 As regard Revenue's appeal we find that M/s Phenix Construction Technology and Shri Malav Girishbhai Patel, Director of M/s Phenix Construction Technology, were called upon to show cause notice vide Show Cause Notice dtd. 24.03.2024 as to why : - (i) 785.860 MT. of f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty. 4.3 We have also gone through the finding of the Ld. Commissioner and find that despite giving his finding in respect of the other proposal of the show cause notice he has not given any finding in respect of the proposal (ii) and (vii) of the show cause notice as above. It is incumbent on the Commissioner to pass an order on each and every proposal made in the show cause notice and he cannot be silent in the operating portion of the order on any of the proposal made in the show cause notice. 4.4 Therefore, on this count we find that there is a clear error in the order. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied provision of laws before passing of the order.....