2024 (6) TMI 1322 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine Removal - paper boards - demand based on relying heavily on the statement of T Balakumar, Managing Partner - no other evidence placed on record by the Revenue to suggest the alleged clandestine removal - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - There appears to be a case made out by the appellant insofar as violation of principles of natural justice is concerned. To start with, it is contended that the statement of Balakumar is not considered in total, whereas the Revenue has picked up only the selective part, which is not justified. Other than this, there is no denial by the lower authorities that the Joint Commissioner did not afford reasonable opportunities since according to the appellants, it was the Additional Commissioner who has seized of the matter and hence, it was incumbent upon the Joint Commissioner to afford reasonable opportunities as prescribed under the statute. Thirdly, the adjournment appears to have been sought for on the ground of appointing a counsel to defend their case, has not been considered. Every person has a right to have a choice of his counsel to defend him before an authority. There is no speaking order to this affect as to why the said request was not acceded to by the first appellate authority. It also appears that the appellant has relied upon various judicial presidents which should have been considered and then the adjudicating authority should have passed a speaking order. The case remanded back to the file of the adjudicating authority, who shall pass a de-novo order after affording reasonable opportunities to the appellants - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order upholding demands
- Lack of representation by the Appellants
- Allegations of clandestine removal and duty demands
- Grounds of appeal challenging duty demand
- Violation of principles of natural justice
- Consideration of statement of Balakumar
- Denial of reasonable opportunities
- Request for adjournment for engaging a counsel
- Consideration of judicial precedents
- Barred period for demand
- Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case

Analysis:

1. Appeal against order upholding demands: The Appellants filed appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding demands against them. The Tribunal noted the lack of representation by the Appellants during the hearing, leading to an ex-parte decision after hearing the representative for the Revenue.

2. Allegations of clandestine removal and duty demands: The Revenue alleged clandestine removal of paper boards by the Appellants, leading to the demand for Central Excise duty. The Appellants challenged this demand, arguing that the reliance on the statement of T Balakumar and the lack of other evidence were insufficient to confirm the demand.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice: The Appellants contended that the impugned order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. They argued that they were not provided reasonable opportunities, and their request for adjournment to engage a counsel was not considered, leading to a violation of their right to defend themselves adequately.

4. Consideration of statement of Balakumar: The Tribunal observed that the statement of Balakumar was not considered in its entirety, and only selective parts were relied upon by the Revenue. This selective approach raised concerns about the fairness of the adjudication process.

5. Remitting the case back: Considering the issues raised regarding natural justice and procedural fairness, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the adjudicating authority. The authority was directed to conduct de-novo proceedings, afford reasonable opportunities to the Appellants, and pass a speaking order within a specified time frame.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand to the original authority, emphasizing the importance of following principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for the Appellants to present their case. The decision aimed to ensure a thorough and fair adjudication process in line with legal requirements.