2018 (11) TMI 290 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Gutkha with brand name such as Sahu Bharat, Sahu Bharat Super , Sahu Bharat Special - appellants request for cross-examination was denied by the then adjudicating authority - Principles of natural justice - Held that - The present impugned order is in total violations of the directions of this Tribunal and without following the principles of natural justice and without application of mind - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Final Order of Tribunal
2. Denial of cross-examination
3. Imposition of personal penalty

Compliance with Final Order of Tribunal:
The appeals arose from an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad, following a Final Order by the Tribunal. The appellants, manufacturers of Gutkha, were subject to a show cause notice for Central Excise duties. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-adjudication, emphasizing the appellants' right to cross-examination. However, the impugned order failed to adhere to the Tribunal's directions and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and all appeals were allowed, granting the appellants consequential relief.

Denial of cross-examination:
The appellants had requested cross-examination of certain individuals in relation to the show cause notice. Despite being informed of a scheduled cross-examination, the adjudicating authority was unavailable, leading to a transfer of officers. The new adjudicating authority, who passed the impugned order, did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The Commissioner's observations regarding the relevance of cross-examination were disputed by the appellants' counsel. It was argued that the impugned order lacked findings and merely reproduced the show cause notice. The failure to allow cross-examination and the absence of proper findings indicated a violation of natural justice and a disregard for the Tribunal's directions.

Imposition of personal penalty:
Personal penalties were imposed on certain entities, despite penalties having been paid following an earlier order. The appellants did not appeal the initial penalty before the Tribunal. The Revenue representative requested a remand to rectify the double imposition of penalties. However, upon review, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be in violation of their directions and devoid of natural justice principles. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and all appeals were allowed, granting the appellants consequential relief. The Tribunal noted that the Miscellaneous Applications were erroneously listed, as they had been previously disposed of.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of compliance with the Tribunal's order, denial of cross-examination, and the imposition of personal penalties, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision.