2002 (12) TMI 525 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of documents.
2. Failure to grant personal hearing.
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Alleged diversion of imported scrap without accounting.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of Documents:
The appellant argued that they were not provided with copies of seized documents, which they claimed was a violation of natural justice. They cited several legal precedents to support their argument that they had the right to obtain copies of all seized documents, including those not relied upon in the show cause notice. The appellant emphasized that the lack of access to these documents hindered their ability to defend themselves effectively.

The judgment noted that the Department had informed the appellant that the documents not relied upon were available for inspection and photocopying. Despite multiple communications and opportunities, the appellant did not take the necessary steps to obtain these documents. The adjudicating authority concluded that there was no violation of natural justice, as the appellant had been given ample opportunity to access the documents but failed to do so.

2. Failure to Grant Personal Hearing:
The appellant contended that they were not granted a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing, which they argued was another violation of natural justice. They referenced several cases where the lack of a personal hearing led to the setting aside of orders.

The judgment detailed that multiple personal hearings were scheduled (on 23-5-2000, 29-6-2000, 18-9-2000, 6-10-2000, and 9-3-2001), but the appellant failed to appear on any of these occasions. The adjudicating authority determined that the appellant had forfeited their right to claim a violation of natural justice by not attending the hearings. The authority held that the appellant's non-cooperation was a deliberate tactic to delay the proceedings.

3. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The lower authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellant for their involvement in the evasion of Central Excise Duty by M/s. Chamak Holdings Ltd. The appellant argued that the penalty was not sustainable in law, citing cases where penalties were not imposed due to the absence of mens rea or when the breach of rules was venial.

The judgment supported the lower authority's decision, stating that the appellant's actions were premeditated and calculative, aimed at facilitating the evasion of duty by M/s. Chamak Holdings Ltd. The adjudicating authority found sufficient evidence on record to justify the imposition of the penalty.

4. Alleged Diversion of Imported Scrap Without Accounting:
The case involved allegations that the appellant had diverted large quantities of imported scrap without proper accounting and documentation. The seized records and statements from various individuals revealed that the appellant had supplied re-rollable scrap without bills and without accounting in their statutory records.

The judgment noted that the evidence on record, including statements and seized documents, substantiated the allegations against the appellant. The adjudicating authority concluded that the appellant had knowingly facilitated the clandestine manufacture and clearance of re-rolled products by M/s. Chamak Holdings Ltd.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected, with the adjudicating authority affirming that there was no violation of natural justice. The appellant's non-cooperation and failure to attend personal hearings were seen as deliberate attempts to delay the proceedings. The penalty imposed under Rule 209A was upheld, and the findings of the lower authority were deemed just and fair.

← Previous Next →