2007 (12) TMI 50 - AT - Central Excise

Order passed by Comm. (A) in remand proceedings is not valid or proper as it has not dealt with the submissions and evidences of the Appellants made in their reply but merely held that the Appellants were manufacturers of washing powder branded as DUTFA - no spot enquiry conducted to negate the stand of Appellant that it has no factory nor mfg. operation carried out thereat - order appears to be totally un-reasoned & cryptic & passed under suspicion and surmise so it is set aside

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and propriety of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Examination of the appellants' submissions and evidence.
3. Allegations of manufacturing and duty evasion.
4. Adherence to principles of natural justice.
5. Requirement of a reasoned and speaking order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Propriety of the Order Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise
The appellants challenged the order dated 26-5-04, asserting it was neither proper nor valid, nor a speaking order. They argued that the order failed to address their submissions and merely concluded that they were manufacturers of washing powder branded as "DUTFA."

2. Examination of the Appellants' Submissions and Evidence
The Tribunal had previously directed the adjudicating authority to examine the appellants' contentions in light of the evidence provided. However, the appellants contended that the adjudicating authority did not record their submissions or consider the evidence, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The order was deemed cryptic and liable to be set aside.

3. Allegations of Manufacturing and Duty Evasion
Show cause notices were issued following a search on 5-12-96, alleging that M/s. R.C. Chemicals manufactured branded washing powder without payment of duty. The appellants argued that they were mere traders, not manufacturers, and that the goods were manufactured by M/s. Samrat Chemicals and M/s. Ankit Chemicals. They highlighted that no purchase documents proving the purchase of washing powder were produced, and the statements relied upon were based on suspicion and surmise.

4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice
The appellants argued that the adjudicating authority's order violated the principles of natural justice as it did not record their submissions or consider the evidence. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority's failure to conduct a spot enquiry or apply rigorous tests to resolve the controversy rendered the order unreasoned and cryptic.

5. Requirement of a Reasoned and Speaking Order
The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a reasoned and speaking order, citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Commr. of Income Tax v. Paiwal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. The requirement for recording reasons and communicating them is integral to fair procedure and the rule of law. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority's order did not meet these requirements, making it unsustainable.

Conclusion
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order for being unreasoned and cryptic, passed under suspicion and surmise, and violating the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed, emphasizing the need for a reasoned and speaking order to ensure fairness and adherence to the rule of law.

(Pronounced in the open Court on 31-12-2007)

← Previous Next →