w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s Beekay Hosiery Industries v/s CCE, Delhi-I

Company & Directors' Information:- J G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101TZ2001PTC009707

Company & Directors' Information:- K D S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101PB2001FTC024327

Company & Directors' Information:- R M H HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17125DL2007PTC167271

Company & Directors' Information:- P T M HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52322WB1994PTC062394

Company & Directors' Information:- M G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17124TZ2002PTC010195

Company & Directors' Information:- D D HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U18101WB1973PTC028694

Company & Directors' Information:- V V HOSIERY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032807

Company & Directors' Information:- M. B. HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC125110

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101MH1984PTC034394

Company & Directors' Information:- K K HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204MH2014PTC251777

Company & Directors' Information:- B B HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC267158

Company & Directors' Information:- M C S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311WB2001PTC093781

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOSIERY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51311PB1985PTC006113

    Excise Appeal No. 2761 of 2007-SM

    Decided On, 16 February 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi


    Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate. Shri V.K. Saxena, Jt. CDR.

Judgment Text

Per D.N. Panda:

Ld. Counsel Shri Bajaj submits that when the Adjudicating Authority failed to examine the evidence that was submitted in terms of letter dated 24.8.2004 (appearing at page 32 of the appeal folder) the appellant has faced the demand. That authority has also mentioned in the order that the documents were not before him for examination. When such finding was there, the appellate authority confirmed adjudication without examining the issue. There was no unreasonable claim by the assessee for availing credit of Rs.4,07,925/- in RG-23A, Part-II recorded vide Entry No. 2 dated 1.4.2004. Detailed calculation sheet was submitted before the Authority to prove bonafide of the appellant. In view of such circumstances, if entire set of documents available in the adjudication record itself is examined, the appellant may not have a grievance.

2. Ld. Jt. CDR Shri Saxena submits that when the appellant failed to buttress its claim before the authority below, the allegation in show cause notice was bound to be confirmed. Therefore grievance of the appellant that it has not taken any unreasonable benefit, not having met scrutiny by Revenue relief cannot be granted.

3. Heard both sides. Both sides suggest that if the matter reaches scrutiny there shall not be dispute. In view of mechanism for resolution of dispute suggested by them the matter should go back to the ld. Adjudicating authority since an evidence as stated by ld. Counsel appears in the appeal record, for appropriate redressal of the grievance. Record reveals that the letter dated 24.8.2004 was also acknowledged under a rubber stamp by an authority. However, that acknowledgement does not carry any signature of the authority. However, to resolve the dispute, granting an opportunity to the assessee, ld. Adjudicating Authority shall do well to consider the defence made by the appellant in terms of letter dated 24.8.2004 and that authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. If any statutory records ar

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e produced to substantiate the claim made in terms of letter dated 24.8.2004, the authority should not over look such evidence to do justice to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is remanded to the extent indicated above.