1994 (10) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order confirming differential duty and imposing penalty under Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 - Rejection of NITRA's report by ld. Collector - Consideration of plea for extending larger period and imposing penalty - Acceptance of NITRA's report - Application of mind in the order.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi arose from an order-in-original passed by the Collector, Jaipur, confirming a differential duty under Sec. 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and imposing a penalty. The Collector's order was based on testing of samples by the Dy. Chief Chemist, Bombay, and the Chief Chemist, Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. The Collector's order mentioned exceptions in the test reports for certain lots but confirmed the duty for others based on the Chief Chemist's report. The appellants contested this decision, arguing that the department should have accepted NITRA's report as agreed earlier. They claimed that only four lots did not meet declarations according to NITRA's report and that the demand for duty on 13 lots based on the Chief Chemist's report was unjustified. The appellants also asserted their lack of mala fides and intention to evade duty, requesting the duty demand to be set aside as time-barred or based solely on NITRA's report.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate reiterated these arguments, citing relevant case law to support their position. On the other hand, the Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) supported the Collector's findings and the rejection of NITRA's report. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and records, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention regarding the importance of NITRA's report, especially given the contradictory results from the Chief Chemist and the Dy. Chief Chemist. The Tribunal noted that the Collector failed to provide convincing reasons for dismissing NITRA's report and did not adequately address the plea for extending the larger period or imposing the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the order lacked detailed reasoning and required a fresh consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for a thorough reevaluation, emphasizing the need to consider the appellant's pleas and the acceptance of NITRA's report in the decision-making process.