2013 (5) TMI 598 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of duty/penalty Held that - In the instant case, de novo adjudication is directed for a second time. The learned Commissioner will have due regard to the relevant observations of tribunal and proceed to undertake de novo adjudication of the case in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. Therefore impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. De novo adjudication of the case
2. Limitation issue and separate show-cause notice
3. Cross-examination of witnesses
4. Quantification of duty and evidence evaluation
5. Imposition of enhanced penalties

De novo adjudication of the case:
The judgment involves applications seeking waiver and stay regarding dues adjudged against the appellants. The case pertains to Oxford Rubber Pvt. Ltd. and other parties aggrieved by penalties. The bench had remanded the case for de novo adjudication in the earlier round due to various grounds. The current impugned order was passed following the remand order. Despite payments made by the company and serious infirmities in the de novo adjudication, the bench decided a second remand was necessary. The decision was based on errors in dealing with contentions, including the limitation issue, separate show-cause notice, cross-examination of witnesses, and quantification of duty. The adjudicating authority was directed to undertake de novo adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, setting aside the impugned order.

Limitation issue and separate show-cause notice:
The adjudicating authority erred in dealing with the contention of the assessee regarding the separate show-cause notice to Max Rubber Company. The authority relied on a decision without prior notice to the assessee, leading to a breach of natural justice. The bench found a mismatch between the reasoning of the authority and the assessee's plea. The failure to examine the relevance of cited decisions and reliance on a judgment without notice were highlighted as deficiencies requiring a second de novo adjudication.

Cross-examination of witnesses:
The bench had previously favored the assessee's plea for cross-examination of witnesses, which was denied in the earlier round. However, the reasons for rejection remained largely the same in the impugned order. The need for proper consideration of cross-examination requests was emphasized for a fair adjudication process.

Quantification of duty and evidence evaluation:
During the de novo adjudication proceedings, the assessee contended that the quantification of duty was incorrect. Detailed materials, including worksheets and statements, were submitted, but the adjudicating authority dismissed them as an afterthought without verifying their correctness. The failure to assess the quantification proposed by the assessee and the imposition of penalties without proper justification were cited as significant reasons for ordering a second de novo adjudication.

Imposition of enhanced penalties:
The appellants raised concerns over the enhanced penalties imposed in the de novo proceedings without adequate reasons provided by the adjudicating authority. Discrepancies in penalty imposition compared to the earlier round of adjudication were noted, emphasizing the need for proper justifications in penalty decisions. The lack of reasons for enhanced penalties was highlighted as a valid ground for remand and reevaluation in the de novo adjudication process.