Cce Ludhiana vs 2. Shri Manav Jindal, Director

[Arising out of OIA No.210-211/CE/APPL/Chd/06, dt.22.03.2006, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Ludhiana]

CCE Ludhiana Appellant

Vs

1. M/s Vintage Knitwears Pvt. Ltd.

2. Shri Manav Jindal, Director Respondents

Represented by:

For Assessee: None

For Revenue : Shri A.K. Singh, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication

in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:21.01.2015

Final Order No.51058-51059/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. There is no application for adjournment. As the appeals filed are old, we take up the appeals for hearing.

2. After hearing ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the Respondents were engaged in the manufacturing of Hosiery Garments classifiable Chapter 61 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs.8,67,494.00 alongwith interest and penalties of equal amount of duty on clandestine removal of the goods. It has also imposed penalty of Rs.8,67,494.00 on Shri Manav Jindal, Director of Respondent No.1 for abetting clandestine removal of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order in so far as the duty was confirmed of Rs.1,93,731.00 and penalty was reduced to Rs.5,000.00 on the Respondent No.1 and penalty on the Respondent No.2 was set aside.

3. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of the contention of the Respondent that they have submitted detailed account of inputs and their utilization in the manufacture of trial products vide letter dt.28.02.2005. According to which, the duty liability comes to Rs.1,93,731.00. We find that this fact was not before the Adjudicating Authority. In our considered view, this should be examined by the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh after considering the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue before this Tribunal. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the Respondent before passing order.

4. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

3