9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1024 - AT - Central ExciseScope of remand - Clandestine removal - branded bidis - Revenue went in appeal before this Tribunal, but, filed only one appeal against M/s. Vyas Shantilal Jethalal & Sons Co., Umeta. No appeal was filed against the dropping of demand issued to M/s Sanjay M Vyas and against Shri Mahendra S. Vyas - Held that - It is clear from the remand order that no appeal was filed against the other appellants except for M/s Vyas S. J. & Sons Co., Umeta. While the remand was undoubtedly open, the remand direction was limited to the adjudication pertaining to M/s. Vyas S. J. & Sons Co., Umeta only - the adjudicating authority has indeed gone beyond the remand direction by adjudicating the matters pertaining to the other appellants in this appeal and has not adhered to the terms of the remand order. The matter requires to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in compliance with the remand order dated 20.10.2005 of this Tribunal and to pass a fresh order after giving the appellant a fair opportunity to defend themselves - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of branded bidis and matador van 2. Recovery of Central Excise duty 3. Imposition of penalties 4. Recovery of interest 5. Compliance with remand order Analysis: Issue 1: Confiscation of branded bidis and matador van The case involved the confiscation of 16,17,000 branded bidis and a matador van seized by Central Excise Preventive officers. The adjudication order by the Commissioner confirmed the confiscation of the bidis under Rule 173Q of CER, 1944 and the matador van under Section 115 of Customs Act, 1962. The order also detailed the provisional release of the goods and the penalties imposed on the involved parties. The Tribunal, in an earlier order, set aside the adjudicating authority's decision and remanded the matter for fresh decision. The subsequent order by the Commissioner confirmed the confiscation of the bidis and matador van, leading to an appeal by the aggrieved parties. Issue 2: Recovery of Central Excise duty The Commissioner's order confirmed the recovery of Central Excise duty from the involved parties under Section 11A of the CEA, 1944. The duty amounts were specified, and penalties were imposed on the parties for non-compliance. The appellants contested the recovery, arguing that the adjudicating authority exceeded the remand directions by confirming the demand against one of the parties. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the order had attained finality for certain parties due to the department not filing any appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in compliance with the remand order. Issue 3: Imposition of penalties Penalties were imposed on the parties under various sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for non-compliance and other violations. The penalties ranged from monetary fines to duty-related penalties. The appellants challenged the imposition of penalties, citing the finality of certain aspects of the case. The Tribunal acknowledged the argument and remanded the case for a fair opportunity for the appellants to defend themselves. Issue 4: Recovery of interest The order also included the recovery of interest at the prescribed rate from the parties on the confirmed Central Excise duty amounts. The interest recovery was in accordance with Section 11AB of the CEA, 1944. The appellants contested the interest recovery along with other aspects of the case, leading to the remand order by the Tribunal. Issue 5: Compliance with remand order The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had not adhered to the terms of the remand order dated 20.10.2005, as the order was limited to the adjudication pertaining to a specific party. The Tribunal found that the authority had gone beyond the remand direction by adjudicating matters involving other appellants not covered by the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in compliance with the remand order. In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand for a fair and compliant fresh adjudication of the case.
|
