Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (2) TMI 442 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of Customs duty and penalty for M/s. Arjun Industries Ltd.

Analysis:
The case involved an application by M/s. Arjun Industries Ltd. for the waiver of pre-deposit of Customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,01,03,020/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000. The appellant, represented by Sh. Sameer Jain, argued that despite being a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and availing duty exemption, adverse conditions led to a halt in manufacturing operations even after installing the imported capital goods. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty alleging non-full installation or use of the goods for export. Various contentions were raised, including the competence of the Central Excise Commissioner to adjudicate customs matters, lack of permission from the Development Commissioner for the show cause notice, and procedural irregularities in issuing multiple notices and conducting hearings.

The opposing argument presented by Sh. O.P. Arora, the learned S.D.R., contended that the Commissioner had jurisdiction based on the executed bond and previous adjournments requested by the applicants during the proceedings. After considering both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was passed more than 5 months after the scheduled hearing date, where the applicants had sought an adjournment. Considering the delay and lack of a further personal hearing before passing the order, the Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated. Consequently, the recovery of the entire duty and penalty was stayed during the appeal's pendency, scheduled for regular hearing on 14-4-2004. This decision was made to ensure fairness and procedural compliance in the adjudication process.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates