2009 (11) TMI 980 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Adjudication of a Show-cause notice resulting in demand of duty, penalty imposition, denial of natural justice, failure to consider case law cited.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI involved the confirmation of a demand of duty against the appellant under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, along with interest u/s 11AB, and imposition of penalty u/s Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant's appeal against the order of adjudication, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), was the subject of the present appeal.

The appellant did not have any representation during the proceedings, while the respondent was represented by the JDR.

The learned JDR highlighted that a significant portion of the Show-cause notice was not presented by the appellant, which was later produced during the proceedings.

The case revolved around allegations of clandestine removal of excisable goods by the appellant, based on statements of Shri Umesh V. Modi and original records seized. The original authority and appellate authority relied on these materials to conclude that the appellant had indeed engaged in clandestine activities. However, the appellant contested the allegations, questioning the reliability of the evidence and requesting to cross-examine Shri Umesh Modi and inspect the original records. The appellate authority upheld the original authority's decision without proper scrutiny or consideration of the appellant's grievances, including denial of natural justice and failure to consider relevant case law.

In light of the circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the lower authorities' orders. The original authority was directed to re-adjudicate the matter, ensuring the appellant's right to cross-examine Shri Umesh Modi and obtain certified extracts from the original records. The appellant was to be given a fair opportunity to present their case in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of upholding natural justice and considering all relevant aspects of the case law cited by the appellant.