2002 (7) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to imposition of penalty under Adjudication order, missing records delaying appeal hearing, condonation of delay in filing appeal, reconstruction of original appeal, challenge against demand of duty in fresh appeal, justification for delay in challenging duty demand, absence of show cause notice before penalty imposition, confirmation of duty demand, imposition of penalty, deliberate intention to evade payment of duty.

Analysis:

1. Missing Records Delaying Appeal Hearing:
The appeal was filed challenging the imposition of penalty under an Adjudication order, but the records related to the appeal were missing in the Tribunal, causing a delay in the hearing despite repeated representations from the assessee.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The assessee filed a fresh appeal in 2002 along with an application to condone the delay of five years and six months in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appellant should have reconstructed the original file instead of filing a fresh appeal, but considering the circumstances and the copy of the original appeal provided, the Tribunal accepted it as the reconstructed original appeal of 1996.

3. Challenge Against Demand of Duty in Fresh Appeal:
In the original appeal of 1996, the challenge was limited to the imposition of penalty, with no challenge against the demand of duty. However, in the appeal filed in 2002, the appellant raised several grounds challenging the demand of duty as well, which were not present in the original appeal. The Tribunal refused to entertain these additional grounds as they were not part of the original appeal and no valid reasons were provided for the delay in raising these challenges.

4. Absence of Show Cause Notice Before Penalty Imposition:
The main complaint of the appellant in the original appeal was the absence of a show cause notice before the imposition of the penalty. However, it was noted that the appellant had intimated that they had paid the duty amount and did not desire a show cause notice or personal hearing. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal found that the penalty was unjustified as there was no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposition.

5. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the imposition of penalty and granting the appellant consequential reliefs. The decision was based on the lack of deliberate intention to evade duty payment and the unjustified nature of the penalty under the circumstances of the case.