CHAMUNDA SYNPROCESS (I) PVT. LTD. Vs. JT. COMMR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our opinion, the matter needs remand before CESTAT for the reason impugned order is cryptic and does not note the relevant facts which are to be considered and thereafter finding returned on the subject whether there was a clandestine removal of fabrics by the appellant.

(2.) The challenge before CESTAT was to an order dated 21-1-2008 originating from the order dated 20-11-2006.

(3.) The aforesaid two orders have exhaustively discussed the evidence and we find that the impugned order dated 7-11-2017 does not even note the contention advanced by rival parties with reference to the documentary evidence considered by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Authority.