2007 (9) TMI 110 - AT - Central Excise

Proceeding after two years of inspection Belated action by Dept. need to be explained No any reason explained by Dept. for delay Appellant has been dealt unfairly and deprived of due process of justice Appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Controverting retraction of statement
2. Belated initiation of proceeding
3. Shortage found on the ground of clandestine removal

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the Department's failure to controvert the retraction of a statement made by an individual during the inspection. The Appellant's Counsel argued that the Department's reliance on the statement without addressing the retraction was a legal infirmity. Citing previous judgments, the Counsel highlighted that any belated initiation of proceedings, especially without a clear case at the time of inspection, was not acceptable. The Tribunal, considering the arguments and precedents, found the Department's actions unfair and lacking due process of justice, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellant.

2. Moving on to the second issue of belated initiation of proceedings, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely actions by the Department. The Counsel's submission, supported by legal precedents, underscored that any delay in initiating proceedings could render the case legally unsustainable. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, stating that the lack of explanation for the delay in proceeding after two years of inspection deprived the Appellant of fair treatment and due process. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant due to the fatal flaw in the Revenue's case caused by the belated decision to initiate proceedings.

3. The final issue pertains to the shortage found on the ground of clandestine removal, which was supported by the Department's representative. However, the Tribunal's analysis primarily focused on the procedural aspects and legal validity of the Department's actions rather than the substantive issue of the shortage itself. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the Appellant was primarily driven by the procedural irregularities and lack of due process observed in the Department's handling of the case.