By TIOLNews Service

CHENNAI, OCT 03, 2017: THE adjudicating authority (AA) concluded that the Cheese Yarn were cleared as Hank Yarn without issuances of the invoices. So also, disguised clearances were made to cause duty evasion.

Examining the statement recorded from different persons in paras 54-57 and para 59 as well as para 60, the AA found that the entire admitted deposition of the witnesses was corroborated by the confessional statement of the Managing Director. In para 62, the AA also recorded that buyers had received only Cheese Yarn but not Hank Yarn.

In fine, the CE duty demand of Rs.10,23,983/- was confirmed with interest and equal penalty.

The CESTAT held that the plea of violation of natural justice was not sustainable. Finding no merits in the appeal filed by the assessee, the same was rejected.

This order was reported as - 2017-TIOL-1077-CESTAT-MAD.

The appellant is in appeal before the Madras High Court.

The following substantial questions of law have been framed:-

"a. Whether the entries in the private record, namely, "Broker's Commission file" can be made the basis for upholding the charge of clandestine removal of goods in the absence of corroborative evidences, such as, stock difference, purchase of raw materials without invoice, seizure of unaccounted finished goods while transporting, etc?

b. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, abatement of duty element, such as, cum-duty benefit is permissible?

c. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the appeal without considering the various grounds raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal?"

The High Court adverted to the following decisions of the Supreme Court -

++ HVPNL v. Mahavir - Held that the appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence, and then to dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.

++ Tata Engineering & Locomotice Co. Ltd., = 2006-TIOL-164-SC-CX-LB - Held- it is not sufficient in a judgment, to give conclusions alone, but it is necessary to give reasons, in support of the conclusions arrived at - findings recorded by the Tribunal therein, were cryptic and non-speaking - matter remitted to the Tribunal.

Viewing that it had no hesitation in setting aside the final order dated 21.11.2016, the same was set aside and the matter was remitted to the CESTAT, with a direction to consider the pleadings, grounds of appeal raised and pass orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks.

The Appeal was allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2071-HC-MAD-CX)