2002 (4) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged disposal of goods in contravention of rules by an EOU unit.
2. Demand of duty, penalty, and interest under Customs Act and Central Excise Act.
3. Denial of natural justice in the order passed by the Commissioner.
4. Validity of permissions granted by the Development Commissioner for DTA sales.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, an EOU unit manufacturing dress materials, were issued a Show Cause Notice for disposing of waste yarn and substandard fabrics in the DTA without paying appropriate duty, despite obtaining permission from the Development Commissioner, Kandla Free Trade Zone. It was alleged that they availed full duty exemption on raw materials but engaged in ineligible DTA sales, contravening Customs Act and Central Excise Act provisions.

2. The Commissioner confirmed duty demands under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, imposed penalties under Rule 209, and ordered interest recovery under Central Excise Act provisions. However, the Tribunal found the order lacking conformity with natural justice and law, as it did not consider written replies and arguments made during the personal hearing. Additionally, the order was not signed by the Commissioner, rendering it invalid per legal precedent.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the discrepancy between the written reply and subsequent submissions made by the appellants, emphasizing the Commissioner's failure to address these arguments. The order's lack of signature by the Commissioner and reliance on an attested document further raised concerns regarding procedural irregularities and denial of natural justice.

4. Regarding permissions granted by the Development Commissioner for DTA sales, the Tribunal held that once such permissions were obtained, the Commissioner should not question their validity without consulting the relevant authority. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the case for de novo adjudication, directing the Adjudicator to consider the Development Commissioner's views on the permissions granted before making a decision. The appeal was allowed as remand, with stay application and condonation of delay disposed of accordingly.