2013 (7) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

Principle of Natural Justice not followed Adjudication done within a short-period by Adjudicating Authority Proper opportunity of being heard not allowed. Impugned order is non-speaking order, issued in less than 24 hours of conducting the hearing by the adjudicating authority. Appellants were called for personal hearing on 22.08.2012 and when they sought additional time the same was denied and final hearing was held on 30.08.2012. According to Ld. Advocate the time given was totally insufficient for submitting the reply. - Held that - A reasonable time should have been given to them so as to enable them to make further written submissions. The case remanded back to the Commissioner for adjudication.

Issues:
1. Lack of following principles of natural justice and issuance of non-speaking order by the adjudicating authority within a short period after the hearing.
2. Clubbing of units and denial of SSI exemption.
3. Use of a specific price list for computing demand.
4. Confirmation of demand for imported goods.
5. Incorrect demand on a specific number of imported LPG Gas stoves.
6. Valuation issues related to goods supplied to various entities.
7. Inclusion of trading activities in computing demand without proper assessment by the Commissioner.

Issue 1 - Lack of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant's advocate raised concerns regarding the adjudicating authority not following the principles of natural justice and issuing a non-speaking order within 24 hours of the hearing. The appellant argued that the time provided for submitting replies was insufficient, even though some submissions were made later. The order-in-original was issued without considering these submissions, leading to a lack of proper assessment and violation of natural justice principles.

Issue 2 - Clubbing of Units and SSI Exemption Denial:
One of the issues raised was the clubbing of units and the denial of Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption. This decision significantly impacted the demand amount, estimated at approximately Rs. 88 lakhs. The appellants requested additional time for submissions, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to present their case properly.

Issue 3 - Specific Price List for Demand Computation:
Another issue revolved around using a particular price list for computing the demand for a specific period. The price list did not include Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for many goods, causing discrepancies in assessment. The appellant highlighted the importance of accurate pricing information for proper valuation.

Issue 4 - Confirmation of Demand for Imported Goods:
Concerns were raised regarding the confirmation of demand for imported goods, particularly related to the correctness of the MRP declared for payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD). The appellant pointed out receiving a demand notice from customs on the same issue, questioning the validity of dual demands from Customs and Excise.

Issue 5 - Incorrect Demand on Imported LPG Gas Stoves:
A dispute arose concerning the incorrect demand on a specific number of imported LPG Gas stoves in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition. The disagreement stemmed from the department's use of MRP from a specific price list, leading to discrepancies in valuation and demand calculation.

Issue 6 - Valuation Issues for Goods Supplied to Entities:
Various valuation issues were highlighted, including the valuation of goods supplied to entities like Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and through distributors of a specific corporation. The appellant argued that the valuation methodology used was incorrect, emphasizing the need for proper assessment under relevant sections.

Issue 7 - Inclusion of Trading Activities in Demand Calculation:
The inclusion of goods not manufactured by the appellants but related to trading activities in computing the demand raised concerns. The appellant stressed that the value of such goods should not have been included without a thorough assessment by the Commissioner. The lack of findings on submissions made by the appellants further complicated the issue.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal directed the main appellant to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe and instructed all appellants to resubmit their submissions for a fresh assessment by the Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair hearing, proper assessment, and expedited decision-making process while refraining from expressing opinions on individual issues.

← Previous Next →