2018 (4) TMI 1316 - AT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - DEPB scheme - false documents and Bills of Entry - principles of natural justice - Held that - the impugned orders were passed ex-parte and without having cognizance to the reply submitted by the appellant - During the course of arguments, learned Counsel submitted that first time evidence can also be produced before the Tribunal. Matter remanded to the original authority to decide the issues denovo on merit but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant, with liberty to file fresh evidence. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeals
- Allegations of fraudulent export under DEPB scheme
- Ex-parte orders passed without considering appellant's reply
- Remand of the matter to original authority for denovo decision

Delay in filing appeals:
The delay in filing the appeals was condoned by the tribunal for reasons mentioned in the applications, and the appeals were admitted. The main appellants were engaged in the production and clearances of goods attracting Central Excise duty. The appellant, formerly known as M/s. Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd., was registered with the Central Excise Department and availing the cenvat credit facility. The appellant was also involved in import and export business but later closed their manufacturing activity.

Allegations of fraudulent export under DEPB scheme:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against the appellant for fraudulent export under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme and the claim of rebate. The DRI alleged that the appellant was claiming rebates based on false documents and Bills of Entry. Following a search at the premises, penalties were levied on the appellant and other involved parties. The appellants challenged these penalties by filing appeals against the original order.

Ex-parte orders passed without considering appellant's reply:
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against the show cause notice, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed with directions to file a preliminary reply within two weeks. The appellant submitted the reply within the stipulated time, but the Commissioner passed the impugned order without considering the reply. The tribunal noted that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte without taking cognizance of the appellant's submissions. The tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision, providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and submit fresh evidence.

Remand of the matter to original authority for denovo decision:
In the interest of justice, the tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for a denovo decision on merit, with the liberty to the appellant to file fresh evidence. The tribunal emphasized that if the appellant does not cooperate, the law will take its course. The tribunal also directed the remand of the matter to both the Indore and Bhopal Commissionerates for further proceedings. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed by way of remand, providing them with an opportunity to present their case effectively.