2016 (5) TMI 1200 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of Central Excise duty - confiscation of seized MS Pipes from two different premises; for imposition of penalties under the various provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - correctness of the conclusion drawn by the Original Authority on the duty liability of the main appellant - Held that - It is apparent that the admission of the main appellant to the limited duty liability, as mentioned and the rejection of their application for settlement of the case has been the main reason for confirmation the whole demand against the main appellant. We find that the Original Authority has to record the various evidences alongwith the reason for admitting such evidences after giving due consideration to the appellant s plea. When the appellants made request specifically in writing for cross examination of the persons whose statements have been relied upon, the Original Authority s finding on such request has to be recorded. We find the request for cross examination itself has not been recorded. While admittedly non-payment of duty exist in this case, the quantification of non-paid duty has to be arrived at by analyzing the evidences and taking into account the defence submission alongwith their plea for cross examination as sought for by the appellant. Considering the above we are constrained to observe that the impugned order in the present form cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. We do so accordingly. The case is remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision keeping in view the observations made above. The appellants shall be given due opportunity to present their case and thereafter the Original Authority may decide the case as expeditiously as possible.

Summary

Issues:
Adjudication order against excise appeals | Settlement Commission's rejection of duty evasion application | Rejection of applications by Settlement Commission | Confirmation of duty demand | Confiscation of seized goods | Imposition of penalties | Appeal against Original Authority's order

Adjudication Order against Excise Appeals:
The judgment pertains to five excise appeals challenging a common adjudication order by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - II. The main appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS Pipes, was not paying duty claiming small-scale exemption. Following a search and investigation, a show cause notice was issued for duty demand, confiscation of seized goods, and penalties under Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Settlement Commission's Rejection of Duty Evasion Application:
The appellants approached the Settlement Commission, admitting a duty evasion of ?10,85,000. However, their application was rejected for not making a full and fair disclosure of duty liability. A writ petition challenging this rejection was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Subsequent applications were also rejected by the Settlement Commission, leading to adjudication by the Original Authority.

Rejection of Applications by Settlement Commission:
The Settlement Commission rejected the appellants' applications as they failed to disclose their full duty liability. The subsequent adjudication by the Original Authority confirmed the duty demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties, prompting the filing of appeals.

Confirmation of Duty Demand:
The appellants admitted a duty liability of ?22,49,936. However, they contested the full duty demand, arguing that the Original Authority did not analyze the evidence or give a finding on it. They emphasized the need for additional duty liability to be supported by evidence.

Confiscation of Seized Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
The Original Authority confirmed the duty demand, ordered the confiscation of seized goods, and imposed penalties on the appellants. The appellants contended that the reliance on Settlement Commission's findings was improper and requested a thorough examination of the evidence.

Appeal against Original Authority's Order:
The appellants argued for cross-examination of witnesses and a detailed analysis of evidence before confirming the duty demand. They cited a Gujarat High Court decision to support their stance. The Original Authority's heavy reliance on Settlement Commission's observations was challenged, emphasizing the need for a fair consideration of the appellants' submissions.

The Tribunal found that while non-payment of duty existed, the Original Authority failed to adequately consider the evidence and appellants' requests. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh decision, allowing the appellants to present their case properly. The need for a thorough examination of evidence, including cross-examination requests, was highlighted for a fair adjudication process.