Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 205 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - various submissions and explanations on the basis of records made before the Commissioner was not considered - It is also observed that the entire demand is merely based on the submissions of the customers, which is without corroboration of any other evidence. The statements given by third party cannot be accepted when they are not cross-examined by the adjudicating authority, particularly, when the appellant had made specific request for the same - there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the adjudicating Commissioner - the matter needs to be remanded to the Commissioner - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Alleged clandestine removal of goods - Demand of Central Excise duty - Imposition of penalties and interest under Section 11AB - Invocation of Section 11AB and 11AC - Violation of principles of natural justice - Remand to the Commissioner - Set aside penalty and interest Analysis: 1. The appellant was involved in the manufacturing of toughened glasses and clear tinted edge cut glasses without toughening. Allegations were made that they clandestinely removed goods by manipulating records, showing clearance of less quantity/interior quality in duty paying documents while actually removing more quantity/superior quality. A show-cause notice was issued demanding Central Excise duty of ?40,68,585.32 under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, imposed penalties, and demanded interest under Section 11AB, leading to the appellant filing an appeal against the order-in-original. 2. During the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the demand was based on statements of customers claiming to have received toughened glasses, while the appellant contended they also supplied un-toughened glasses. The appellant requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was not granted by the Commissioner, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. Additionally, it was argued that Sections 11AB and 11AC were not applicable during the relevant period of the alleged offense (1989-1992) as they were enacted in 1996, citing relevant case laws and circulars. 3. The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, reiterated the findings in the impugned order, emphasizing the confessional statements of customers as sufficient evidence for confirming the demand. However, the Tribunal noted that the entire demand was solely based on customer statements without corroborating evidence or cross-examination, leading to a gross violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Commissioner regarding the duty demand and set aside the penalties and interest imposed under Sections 11AB and 11AC due to their inapplicability during the relevant period. 4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal position that Sections 11AB and 11AC were not in force during the period of the alleged offense, as established by case laws and circulars. Therefore, the penalties and interest imposed under these sections were set aside. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to address the issues related to duty demand, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and legal provisions applicable during the relevant period. 5. The Tribunal's order was pronounced on 28/9/17, emphasizing the importance of upholding natural justice and legal provisions while addressing duty demands and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
|