2024 (6) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 appellant. The matter got adjudicates vide imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TH 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 find that from the impugned Order-In-Order under consideration has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rings. 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 does not merit any consideration. I hold that the stated contention is vague, unsub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustries 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 requested to remand the matter to the commissioner for fresh adjudication and to pass a fresh....