2011 (7) TMI 703 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Clandestine removal - violation of natural justice - three out of eight records required by M/s Sona Processors in the remanded proceedings are yet to be supplied to them, though the remand order issued by this Bench required all such documents to be supplied - Held that the findings recorded in Order-in-Original No. 15/2005 dated 3.5.2005 (which was set aside by this Bench on 18.1.2006) came to be reiterated verbatim in the present impugned order, which discloses non-application of mind to the issues in hand - Appeals are allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty, fine, and penalties; challenge against demand of duty, fine, and penalties; non-supply of documents to the appellants; denial of natural justice in cross-examination of witnesses; non-application of mind by the Commissioner in the impugned order.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved multiple issues concerning stay applications, challenges against demands of duty, fines, and penalties, non-supply of crucial documents, denial of natural justice in cross-examination of witnesses, and non-application of mind by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The main party, M/s Sona Processors, challenged a demand of duty exceeding Rs 4.5 crores for clandestinely removed processed fabrics during a specific period. The appeals also addressed redemption fines and penalties imposed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal noted that crucial documents requested by M/s Sona Processors had not been supplied, despite the remand order's requirement. The appellants sought to cross-examine specific witnesses, but the Commissioner's handling of the process was found lacking in natural justice.

The Tribunal acknowledged that three out of eight required records were not supplied to M/s Sona Processors, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the remand order's directives. The appellants' request to cross-examine certain witnesses was discussed, highlighting delays in scheduling and the need for a final opportunity to ensure justice. The judgment emphasized the necessity for M/s Sona Processors to present clear reasons for cross-examination in light of pending document submissions. The Tribunal found merit in the argument that the impugned order lacked fresh consideration of issues, leading to a decision for further remand.

Consequently, the Commissioner's order was set aside for the appellants, granting a remand with specific instructions for a fresh consideration of all issues in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized providing M/s Sona Processors with all relevant records, opportunities to respond to the show-cause notice, cross-examine witnesses, and be personally heard. The parties were urged to cooperate for expeditious case resolution. Additionally, the stay petitions were disposed of in the same judgment.