9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 202 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - manufacture of MS ingots - Held that - I find that the adjudicating authority in his OIO No.07/2014 dt. 07.07.2014 at para 6.3 has held that a comprehensive show cause notice proposing demand of duty covering the entire investigation would be issued by DGCEI in due course on conclusion of the investigation. During the course of hearing, a copy of the said Show Cause Notice No.70/2015-CEX dt. 30.09.2015 issued by DGCEI, Chennai was placed. I find that in terms of para 3.2 of Part-I of Chapter 17 of CBEC Central Excise Manual on Search and Seizure , the adjudicating officer is the competent authority for release of goods and for imposition of penalty. With the issuance of detailed SCN dt. 30.9.2015 by DGCEI, I have no other option but to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after granting a fair opportunity to the appellant to defend their case. Accordingly, the orders passed by lower authorities are set aside - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of unaccounted MS ingots 2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Confiscation of unaccounted MS ingots: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing M.S. ingots, were found to have engaged in clandestine removal of MS ingots to specific entities, resulting in the seizure of 129125.34 Kgs of MS ingots valued at &8377; 39,64,148/-. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the unaccounted MS ingots under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, involving Central Excise duty of &8377; 4,89,969/-. The adjudicating officer, after due process, confiscated the goods as proposed, imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 1,25,000/- under Section 34 of the C.E Act, 1944, and levied a penalty of &8377; 4,89,969/- under Rule 25 of the CER 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, leading to the present appeal. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002: The appellant's counsel contended that the penalty was not warranted as the requirements of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not met in this case, seeking its annulment. The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order, mentioning the issuance of a detailed show cause notice by DGCEI, Chennai. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had indicated the issuance of a comprehensive show cause notice by DGCEI, Chennai, covering the entire investigation. Citing the CBEC Central Excise Manual, the Tribunal determined that the adjudicating officer was the competent authority for the release of goods and the imposition of penalties. Consequently, in light of the detailed show cause notice issued by DGCEI, Chennai, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication on merits, granting the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case. As a result, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal was allowed by remanding it to the original authority for further proceedings.
|
