2008 (8) TMI 697 - AT - Central Excise

Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Hearing, personal hearing - principles of Natural Justice - bogus transactions

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order.

The appellant imported Crude Palm Oil for manufacturing soap at a concessional rate of duty. The Department alleged diversion of goods in the local market and bogus sale of soaps. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,03,57,335/- along with interest and imposed an equal penalty. The appellant claimed violation of natural justice principles due to inability to reply to the show cause notice timely, citing accidents involving the proprietor and his son. The Tribunal noted multiple opportunities given for a response and found no evidence of the claimed accidents being presented before the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find any violation of natural justice and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 10 lacs within eight weeks, file a reply within four weeks, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to provide reasons for the delayed response despite ample opportunities granted. The Tribunal ordered the deposit of Rs. 10 lacs within a specified timeline and the filing of a reply to the Commissioner. The original authority's order was set aside, and a fresh consideration was directed after allowing reasonable opportunities to the appellants. The Tribunal clarified that any grievances could be raised before the Commissioner during the reevaluation process, refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merits. Failure to comply with the deposit requirement would render the order ineffective, leading to the appeal being heard on its merits by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim of a violation of natural justice, highlighting the lack of evidence presented regarding the alleged accidents affecting the timely response. The Tribunal's decision focused on ensuring compliance with the deposit directive and the timely submission of a reply to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration of the case, maintaining fairness and procedural integrity in the adjudication process.