2005 (6) TMI 430 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against duty amount and penalty, financial hardship, correctness of entries in RG-1 Register, violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

Analysis:
1. Pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty: The appellants were required to pre-deposit a substantial duty amount and penalty, along with individual penalties on officers. They argued in favor of their case, claiming financial hardship due to being declared a sick unit by BIFR, facing significant losses, and lacking working capital or sales income. They contended that the entries in the RG-1 Register were incorrect, as there was no production during the period in question due to the shutdown of the Steel Melting Shop and a labor strike. The appellants asserted that the investigating officers did not consider their rebuttal evidence against the entries, and the order did not address their contentions, making it non-speaking and violative of Principles of Natural Justice.

2. Entries in RG-1 Register: The Revenue confirmed demands based on entries in the RG-1 Register and Books of Accounts, alleging clandestine removal. The appellants argued that the entries were erroneously made by a clerk and needed correction. They highlighted the lack of production during the recorded period, emphasizing the shutdown of the Steel Melting Shop and the labor strike. The appellants claimed that all other inputs and outputs were reconciled, and the investigating officers failed to conduct a thorough inquiry into these aspects, indicating a lacuna in the order.

3. Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal found that the impugned order was not a speaking order and violated the Principles of Natural Justice. It acknowledged the appellants' contentions regarding the incorrect entries in the RG-1 Register, the shutdown of the Steel Melting Shop, and the labor strike, which were not adequately addressed in the order. Considering the strong prima facie case presented by the appellants and their financial hardship as a BIFR Unit facing substantial losses, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to grant a waiver of pre-deposit and stay the recovery. The Tribunal directed an out-of-turn hearing of the appeal due to the significant amounts involved.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appellants relief by allowing the stay application, waiving the pre-deposit, and staying the recovery, recognizing the substantial financial hardship faced by the appellants and the deficiencies in the investigation and order, thereby ensuring adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice.