2009 (2) TMI 599 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of appeals after remand from the Supreme Court for de novo hearing and disposal within a specified timeframe.
2. Examination of various documents and evidence presented by the appellant to establish bona fide and proper assessment under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Request for extension of time by both parties due to the complexity and extensive nature of the case.
4. Failure of the Revenue to produce original Bill of Entries, manufacturer's certificates, and other relevant documents during the hearing.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to three appeals remanded from the Supreme Court for de novo consideration and disposal within six months. The Tribunal, comprising S/Shri D.N. Panda and Rakesh Kumar, commenced the hearing after the remand order and emphasized the need for expedited proceedings as per the Supreme Court's directive.

2. The appellant, represented by Shri L.P. Asthana, presented a plethora of documents and evidence to support their case, focusing on Sections 47 and 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that there was no provisional assessment and highlighted the importance of various documents in establishing the bona fide nature of the transactions. The appellant stressed the necessity of a thorough examination of the evidence to ensure justice in the remanded case.

3. Shri Asthana requested an extension of time beyond the prescribed deadline of 15th March, 2009, citing the complexity and age of the matters involved. Both parties expressed difficulties and sought additional time for the presentation of crucial documents and arguments. The Tribunal acknowledged the time constraints and directed the parties to approach the Supreme Court for a possible extension of the deadline.

4. The Revenue, represented by Shri S.K. Panda, faced criticism for failing to produce essential documents such as original Bill of Entries, manufacturer's certificates, and samples of goods for retesting. The Revenue sought a 15-day extension to gather the necessary documents and information to support their case. The Tribunal noted the importance of scrutinizing the original documents for a fair assessment of the case.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the procedural complexities and the importance of thorough examination of evidence in customs matters. The parties' requests for additional time underscore the need for a comprehensive review to ensure a just and informed decision in compliance with the Supreme Court's directives.