2015 (9) TMI 1317 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that - Tribunal in an identical matter of M/s. Golden Tobacco and Others 2014 (3) TMI 983 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that such confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties jointly and severally are against the settled principles of law, as declared by the various courts and High Courts and cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the matters stand remanded with directions to decide on the liability of each and every assessee in respect of duties as also in respect of penalties. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand, imposition of penalties jointly and severally, confiscation of plants and machineries, remand for fresh decision, non-supply of documents, plea of cross-examination.

Confirmation of Demand and Imposition of Penalties Jointly and Severally:
The judgment addresses the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties jointly and severally on the appellants. The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 43,67,13,242.88 not paid during a specific period and imposed penalties on M/s.GTC Industries Ltd. and M/s.TCL, Varanasi. However, the Tribunal, in a similar case involving M/s. Golden Tobacco, held that such confirmation and penalties jointly and severally are against established legal principles. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to determine the liability of each assessee regarding duties and penalties, aligning with the directions given in the earlier order concerning the grievance about non-supply of documents and the plea of cross-examination.

Confiscation of Plants and Machineries:
In addition to confirming demands and imposing penalties, the Commissioner also ordered the confiscation of plants and machineries, along with penalties on other appellants. The judgment highlights that the demand of duties was jointly and severally confirmed against M/s.GTC Industries and M/s.TCL, Varanasi. However, the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Golden Tobacco emphasized that such joint confirmation of demand and penalties is legally flawed. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the Commissioner, emphasizing the need to re-examine each appellant's liability regarding duties and penalties.

Remand for Fresh Decision:
The Tribunal, following the precedent set in the case of M/s. Golden Tobacco, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-assess the liability of each appellant concerning duties and penalties, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles and court rulings. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair and accurate determination of liabilities without the flaws of joint confirmation of demands and penalties.

Non-Supply of Documents and Plea of Cross-Examination:
Some appellants raised concerns about the non-supply of documents, a grievance that was addressed in the Tribunal's earlier order regarding M/s. Golden Tobacco. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to follow the earlier directives concerning document supply. Additionally, the plea of cross-examination raised by the appellants would be re-examined by the Commissioner in line with the Tribunal's previous order. The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing procedural concerns raised by the appellants to ensure a fair and transparent decision-making process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment comprehensively covers the issues involved, providing insights into the legal reasoning and directives outlined by the Tribunal for a fair and just resolution of the case.