2009 (1) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants have not cooperated with the Adjudicating Authority and neither they availed the opportunity of personal hearing at the original adjudication stage nor in course of proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) so plea that there is violation of natural justice, is not acceptable Powers of adjudication of the Joint Commissioner - Circular 752/68/03-CX mentions that the value of goods/conveyance liable to confiscation will not alter the powers of adjudication of Joint Commissioner which shall solely depend upon the duty/Cenvat credit involved in the offending goods being with the limit of Rs. 20 lac

Summary

Issues:
Competence of Joint Commissioner to adjudicate the matter, denial of natural justice, confiscation of finished goods, confiscation of unaccounted goods, imposition of penalties.

Competence of Joint Commissioner:
The Appellants argued that the Joint Commissioner was not competent to adjudicate the case, citing Section 33 of the Central Excise Act. They contended that the Board did not confer the powers of Commissioner to the Joint Commissioner. However, the Tribunal noted that the Board can confer adjudication powers on any Central Excise officer, including the Joint Commissioner. The circular specified the Joint Commissioner's powers based on the duty involved, which in this case fell within the Joint Commissioner's adjudication powers. Thus, the Tribunal found the competence of the Joint Commissioner to be valid.

Denial of Natural Justice:
The Appellants claimed denial of natural justice as they were not heard during the proceedings. However, the Tribunal observed that the Appellants did not cooperate with the Adjudicating Authority, did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing, and did not provide satisfactory reasons for cross-examination. The authorized representatives were present during the search but did not offer compelling reasons for seeking cross-examination. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the plea of denial of natural justice.

Confiscation of Finished Goods and Unaccounted Goods:
The Appellants argued against the confiscation of finished goods and unaccounted goods, claiming lack of evidence for clandestine clearance. They relied on Tribunal judgments to support their case. However, the Tribunal found that the unaccounted goods were intended for clandestine clearance based on the presence of undeclared machines and unaccounted raw material. The Tribunal concluded that the confiscated goods were meant for evasion of duty, justifying the confiscation and penalties imposed.

Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed on the Appellant and its authorized signatories. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, considering the circumstances of unaccounted goods, lack of cooperation, and intent to evade duty. The penalties were deemed appropriate, given the findings of unaccounted goods and machines for production. The Tribunal found no errors in the impugned order and dismissed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision regarding the competence of the Joint Commissioner, denial of natural justice, confiscation of finished and unaccounted goods, and imposition of penalties. The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment was pronounced on 16-1-2009.