2010 (7) TMI 856 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order confirming demand of duty, non-imposition of penalty, failure to furnish relied upon documents, quashing of proceedings for alleged clandestine removal of goods.

Confirmation of demand and penalty imposition:
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Department's appeal against the order confirming the demand of duty and allowed the assessee's appeal against the penalty imposition. The proceedings initiated for alleged clandestine removal of goods to evade duty were quashed.

Failure to furnish relied upon documents:
The appeal was based on the ground that despite repeated requests, the relied upon documents were not provided to the respondents, leading to ex parte proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this contention, quashed the order, and observed that the Department failed to furnish the documents even at the appellate stage.

Contentions of the parties:
The Department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have given an opportunity to furnish the documents instead of quashing the proceedings. On the other hand, the respondents' Advocate stated that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to remand the matter and had already directed the Department to provide the documents, which they failed to do.

Insufficient time granted:
The Department claimed that there was not enough time granted to furnish the documents, as the letter was issued on 17-12-2004, and the order was passed on 30-12-2004.

Lack of bona fide on the part of the Department:
The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to furnish the relied upon documents despite directions, and even during the appeal proceedings, no explanation was provided for this failure. The lack of effort to provide the documents displayed a lack of bona fide on the part of the Department.

Decision and reasoning:
The Tribunal found that the respondents were issued a show cause notice without the relied upon documents, and even after efforts to obtain them, the documents were not made available. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, as there was no interference warranted in the impugned order.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed based on the failure to provide relied upon documents, leading to the quashing of proceedings related to alleged duty evasion through clandestine removal of goods.