2015 (10) TMI 119 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty jointly and severally - joint imposition of penalty - Held that - In the denovo proceedings, the Commissioner must give clear findings as to whether M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd., Bharatpur, Rajasthan is the manufacturer or M/s GTC Ltd., Mumbai is the manufacturer and the duty demand is to be confirmed only against the person who has been held to be the actual manufacturer based on the finding to whether M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. is an entity floated by GTC Ltd. fully controlled by them or is an independent entity. The duty demand cannot be confirmed against both M/s GTC Ltd., Mumbai and M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. similarly, penalty under Rule 173Q (1) would be impassable only on the person who has been held to be the actual manufacturer. Joint penalty under Rule 173Q (1) cannot be imposed both on M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. and M/s GTC Ltd - Commissioner before adjudication should ensure that all the relied upon documents as well as non-relied upon documents seized from the appellant and in respect of which there is the request of the appellant for supply, must be supplied and to the extent such documents cannot be supplied, the same cannot be relied upon while confirming the duty demand. - Matter remanded back - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Joint confirmation of duties and penalties against multiple entities.
2. Supply of relied upon documents and non-relied upon documents to the appellant.
3. Lack of cross-examination of various deponents of the statements.
4. Completion of re-adjudication within a specified timeframe.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of joint confirmation of duties and penalties against M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. and M/s. Chinar Cigarettes Ltd. The Tribunal sets aside the impugned order, citing that such joint confirmation is not legally sustainable. Referring to earlier Tribunal orders, it is emphasized that duties cannot be confirmed jointly and severally. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directs the Commissioner to complete the re-adjudication within six months.

2. The appellant raises concerns regarding the supply of relied upon documents, stating that not all documents have been provided to them. The Tribunal acknowledges the appellant's grievance and emphasizes the importance of supplying all relevant documents for a fair adjudication process. It is highlighted that the Commissioner must ensure the supply of all relied upon and non-relied upon documents to the appellant for consideration during the proceedings.

3. Another issue raised is the lack of cross-examination of various deponents of the statements. The Tribunal notes that similar grievances were raised in earlier proceedings and directs the adjudicating authority to follow the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasizes that the Commissioner must ensure that all parties have the opportunity for cross-examination to uphold fairness and transparency in the adjudication process.

4. The judgment also addresses the need for expeditious completion of re-adjudication due to the prolonged nature of the matter. The Tribunal emphasizes the importance of timely resolution and directs the Commissioner to complete the re-adjudication within a specified period of six months. The Tribunal highlights the impact of delays on both the Department and the appellants, stressing the need for swift and efficient resolution to avoid unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.