Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s Narmada Fabrics (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. & Service Tax, Surat-II (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : E/49,50/2010-SM
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/01/2016
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (169) CESTAT Ahmedabad (21)

Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Processed Man Made Fabrics (MMF) as job worker. There is a demand of duty of Rs.11,68,950.00 alongwith interest and penalty on the ground of clandestine removal of the goods to the quantity of about Rs.6 lakhs L.Mtrs. The learned Advocate argued the matter on various issues. It is submitted that they have submitted the reconciliation statement with the reply to the Show Cause Notice, which was not considered. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the reply to the Show Cause Notice and the reconciliation statement. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating authority merely proceeded on the basis of statements which were retracted by them. It is also contended that the Adjudicating authority had not given the cross examination of the Panch witnesses.

On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Director of the Appellant, in his statement, accepted the clandestine removal of the goods and therefore, there is no reason to look into the reconciliation statement. It is further submitted that the as the fact of clandestine removal has been admitted by the Appellant, no further opportunity of cross examination is required.

 I find from the reply to the Show Cause Notice that the Appellant submitted the reconciliation statement in respect of the shortage of the goods in their factory against which the demand was raised. It is seen from the impugned order that the authorities below has mainly proceeded on the basis of various statements and ignored the evidences placed by the Appellant. It is well settled that the evidence on record should prevail rather than the statement. In my considered view, the Adjudicating authority should have examined the evidences before passing this order. It should have considered the other issues as raised by the Appellant.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority for passing fresh order, after considering the reconciliation statement of the Appellant and the evidences. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order. I make it clear that this order is passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (20866)
Type : Judiciary (8910)
Tags : Cestat judgments (762)

Search Posts by Date

September 2016
MTWTFSS
« Aug  
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930