AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The preventive staff and the department conducted search at the premises of M/s Pooja Texprints Pvt. Ltd., which culminated in show cause noticed dated 13.11.2000 where under, it has proposed (i) confiscation of unaccounted seized goods i.e. 47,924,75 length metres of processed fabrics totally valued at Rs. 7,18,872/- under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) demand & recovery of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 7,04,533/- on illicitly removed excisable goods of 69,362 meters of length of processed fabrics. (iii) demand & recovery of excise duty amounting Rs. 36,26,396/- chargeable on the wrongful clearances under the Domestic Tariff Area i.e DTA by the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....URAT-I-2023 (69) G.S.T.L 76 (Tri.-Ahmd). (III) SHRESTH LEASING & FINANCE LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX & S.T.,- SURAT-I-2023 (68) G.S.T.L 143 (Tri.-Ahmd) 3.1 It has been the contention of the Learned Advocate that no duty or penalty can be imposed without following the mandate of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without resorting to examination in chief of the concerned person and the witnesses whose statement has been used as an evidence the department for imposition of the penalty and cross examination of these persons by the appellant. 4. We have also heard, the learned departmental representative who has reiterated the findings as given in the impugned Order-In-Original. 5. Having heard the rival submissions, we f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y served on the Noticees. The Noticees failed to attend any of the scheduled hearings. The Noticees reiterated the contents of its letter dated 18.10.2016 in all its subsequent communications in response to hearing notices. I find that the Noticee has raised excuse of seizure of "all .... records for the relevant period......seized by the wings of the Central Excise Department and /or DRI/DGCEI in the past on various occasions". The contention does not specify, as (i) what records were seized, (ii) who seized the records and (iii) when the records were seized. The Noticee has made a sweeping statement which is inherently unverifiable and not open to judicial scrutiny. In the absence of any specifics, the contention raised by the Noticee doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of his contention the Id. Counsel relied on the decision in the case of Favourite Industries vs. CCE, Surat I reported in 2003 (156) ELT 802 (Tri.Mum). The Id. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner has not recorded any findings on the claim of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No.8/97 and has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the appellants have claimed the benefit of Notification 2/95 in respect of the goods cleared to DTA without the permission of the Development Commissioner. The Id Counsel also submitted that as against the duty demanded of Rs.12,23,933/- admitted by the appellants, they have already paid Rs.12,83,266/. It would be pertinent to mention that at the outset the Id. Counsel for the appellant has requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned show cause notice. It is therefore apparent that the Learned advocate appearing at the time of hearing on the earlier occasion before this Tribunal has never contended that they were not supplied with the relied upon documents. 6. The appellant in this case has been provided opportunity of the personal hearing on five occasions, he has not bothered to respond or appear before the adjudicating authority or make any written submissions except the one which is mentioned under para 4 in the preceding pras which has no substance. We also find that the appellant have never made any request of cross-objection of examination in chief of any of the witnesses. We also take note of the fact that no retraction of statement made by him has been f....