1993 (6) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the appellants.
2. Validity of the enhanced penalty imposed post remand by the Tribunal.
3. Reliance on additional evidence, specifically a photocopy of a letter, by the Department without providing an opportunity for cross-examination.

Analysis:

1. The appellants challenged the penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The penalty was raised from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 1 lakh on the company and from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000 on the Managing Director. The appellants argued that they were victims of circumstances as an employee had forged documents, leading to non-payment of duty for certain periods. The company promptly filed a complaint, paid the duty amount, and the employee confessed to the forgery due to financial need. The police case against the employee supported the innocence of the company and the Managing Director.

2. The Tribunal had remanded the matter for cross-examination of the dismissed employee, who allegedly orchestrated the forgery without the appellants' knowledge. However, the Department, post remand, imposed a higher penalty without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal questioned the basis for the increased penalty and criticized the Department's reliance on a photocopy of a letter purportedly written by the dismissed employee. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department's actions were unjustified, especially since the original document was not provided, and cross-examination was not allowed. The Tribunal found the imposition of the penalty unwarranted in light of the circumstances and set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants.

3. The Department argued that it had the power to collect additional evidence, including the photocopy of the letter, even though the dismissed employee did not appear for cross-examination. However, the Tribunal found the Department's reliance on the photocopy without affording the appellants an opportunity to cross-examine the employee to be unjust and unsupported by law. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department's actions lacked procedural fairness and were not in line with the Tribunal's directive to allow cross-examination. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the penalties imposed on the appellants were not justified and allowed the appeals, setting aside the penalties.