2010 (4) TMI 313 - AT - Central Excise

Seizure- declaration of higher value to claim higher deemed credit presumption of seizure made before export taken place and before any declaration of value under section 4 of the central excise act 1944 made. Allegation that assessee was going to declare higher value. Seizure premature. No offence committed. Assessee cannot be penalized on presumption of violation of law subsequently. Natural justice- assessee heard and on subsequent hearing. Inspector appearing for department heard and submission recorded behind back of assessee. No further opportunity for hearing granted. Order passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of penalty due to appellant's death.
2. Lack of representation in Appeals No. 328/06 and E/332/06.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the lower appellate authority's order.
4. Premature seizure of goods by the Department.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of abatement of penalty due to the death of the appellant in Appeals No. E/326/06 and E/331/06. The appellant's death was confirmed with a copy of the death certificate submitted by the appellant's advocate. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was considered abated, leading to the dismissal of the two appeals.

2. In relation to Appeals No. 328/06 and E/332/06, the judgment notes that there was no representation on behalf of the appellants, and no adjournment request was made. This lack of representation raised concerns regarding the proper adjudication of the appeals.

3. The judgment extensively discusses the violation of principles of natural justice in the lower appellate authority's order. It highlights that the lower appellate authority conducted hearings where detailed submissions were made behind the back of the appellants, without granting them a further opportunity of hearing. This was deemed a gross violation of natural justice, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.

4. The judgment also delves into the premature seizure of goods by the Department before the export and declaration of value under Section 4 of the Act. It mentions that the Department seized the goods based on an allegation that the appellants were going to declare a higher value to claim higher deemed credit. However, as the seizure was done prematurely, the judgment concluded that no offence had been committed by the appellants, and penalizing them on presumption of future violation was unjustified.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi set aside the impugned orders due to violations of natural justice and lack of merit, allowing all six remaining appeals in the case.