2017 (2) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - on going through various statements, many of them were found to be not legible, nor typed copies have been enclosed along with the hand written copies. In these circumstances, it is difficult to proceed with the matter even after spending of one hour of hearing - Held that - Since the incident of alleged removal refers to the year 1998 and the appellants are in the second round of litigation before this forum and the appeal has been listed several times, there is no justification to adjourn the matter on this issue - the appeals are dismissed as non-maintainable - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S. Tax, Vapi - Alleged duplication of demand - Clandestine removal - Legibility of statements and documents - Non-seriousness in conducting the case - Dismissal of appeals for non-maintainability.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against OIO-15/MP/VAPI/2008, dated 10-3-2008, passed by the Commissioner, C.Ex. & S. Tax, Vapi. The appellant's advocate argued that there was a duplication of demand for certain items due to the opening stock shown on the day of visit being the same as the closing stock on the earlier stock-taking occasion, resulting in double duty imposition. It was acknowledged that this specific issue was not raised before the lower authorities. The advocate also contested the allegation of clandestine removal, referring to various statements recorded during the investigation. However, during the hearing, it was noted that some statements, including a key witness's statement, were illegible and incomplete. The Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice, listing relied-upon documents, was missing from the appeal memorandum. Additionally, many statements were found to be illegible, lacking typed copies for clarity. This lack of proper documentation and clarity hindered the proceedings, reflecting a lack of seriousness on the part of the appellants and their advocate. Despite multiple listings and the extended duration of the case, the matter was not adjourned due to the seriousness of the alleged incident dating back to 1998. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable. However, the appellants were granted the opportunity to rectify the appeal paper book by providing all relevant documents, including typed copies for restoration of the appeals. A miscellaneous application was disposed of in this regard. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Member (J) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.