9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 983 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacure and removal of goods - Imposition of duty jointly and severally - whether demands can be confirmed jointly and severely was the subject matter of various decision of the Tribunal - Held that - Adjudicating authority has not been able to make out his mind as to whether the duty has to be confirmed, if at all, against M/s. GTC Industries or KCL. It seems that on account of failure to come to conclusive finding as regards the evader of duty, he has found it easy to confirm the demands jointly and severely against both the parties. Apart from the imposing independent penalty of ₹ 29 crore to M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. - impugned order is required to be set aside and matter is required to be remanded for reconsideration and fresh adjudication - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty against M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. and Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd. 2. Imposition of penalties jointly and severally on the parties. 3. Whether demands can be confirmed jointly and severely. 4. Supply of documents to the appellant. 5. Issue of cross-examination of certain deponents. 6. Delay in adjudication proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to the confirmation of the demand of duty against M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. and Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd., along with the imposition of penalties. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of approximately Rs. 29.53 crores against the mentioned parties. The contention arose regarding the responsibility for duty evasion, whether it should be directed towards the manufacturer (Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd.) or the controlling party (GTC Industries Ltd.). The Tribunal noted the lack of conclusive findings by the adjudicating authority on this matter and set aside the joint confirmation of demands against both parties for reconsideration. 2. The legal issue of confirming demands jointly and severely was discussed, citing precedents such as the case of Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal emphasized the need for adherence to principles of natural justice, directing the Revenue to provide necessary documents to the appellant and to consider the issue of cross-examination in the fresh adjudication process. 3. The delay in the adjudication process was highlighted, with the Tribunal expressing concern over the careless handling of the matter by the Department. The failure to supply relied upon documents and non-relied upon documents to the appellant over an 18-year period was noted. The Tribunal pointed out violations of Circular No. 171/5/96-CX and Rule 24A of Central Excise Rules, emphasizing the necessity for timely adjudication and proper document handling. 4. The judgment also addressed the introduction of interest provisions under Section 11AA and the need for expedited adjudication to avoid interest liabilities for the Department. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of completing adjudication proceedings promptly to ensure the charging of interest on duty demand confirmed under Section 11A(2) if the assessee failed to pay the duty within the specified period. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for de novo adjudication within a specified time frame. The Commissioner was directed to ensure strict compliance with the Tribunal's directions, and a copy of the order was to be endorsed to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs for necessary action.
|
