9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under Challan No. HVOC/185 dated 25-5-1985. On examination it was found that all the tins were first filled with oil and bottom sealed and then oil removed either by cutting the bottom lid or by making a hole in the tagger. Since reasons for their rejection were not recorded in challan and since on visual examination those tins appeared beyond repair, the officers requested the factory Manager to tender the Register of returned goods along with return challans for January, 1984 for scrutiny and enquiry about the returned goods which he did. 3. The officers then went round the factory and found 142 Bundles X 7 pcs. = 994 pcs. of 2 kgs. Ganesh No. 1 tins lying in one corner of the open yard. The Manager, on being asked, stated that those tins were not fully manufactured and rejected but he could not produce any records, statutory or otherwise, to show that those tins were rejected in course of manufacture. Production and sorting report tendered by the appellants did not contain a single entry to show that any container was rejected in course of manufacture. On the contrary, the condition of the packing i.e., tied with coir rope in bundle of seven with up or lid fitted on it goes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32,634 pieces of assorted size metal containers valued Rs. 8,32,680.80 calculated on the basis of the price lists of the relevant period from 1981 to 1985 and removed those metal containers during the period in the guise of goods, received under Rule 173H for repair and processing without observance of Central Excise formalities with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty in a sum of Rs. 1,29,572.23 N.P. Accordingly, a Show Cause notice was issued dated 9-12-1985 as to why the above-said duty should not be demanded and realised and why penalty should not be imposed under 170Q(1) of the said rules. 8. The appellant filed their reply .and a personal hearing was granted and the impugned order was passed. 9. The learned Advocate Shri Deepak Roy appearing for appellants contended that the demand is barred by limitation and the extended period is not applicable to the facts of this case. He also contended that there is no evidence to show that the appellants had removed 1,32,634 pieces of assorted size metal containers and the impugned order does not disclose the evidence in this regard. He also stated that relevant documents were not supplied to the appellants and prejudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties and should furnish reasons as to why the same is rejected. 13. In a decision reported in AIR 1976 (S.C.) 1785 at page 1789 (Siemens Engg. and Mfg. Co. v. Union of India) the Supreme Court held as follows : It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reason in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd., C.A. No. 245 of 1970 decided on 17-12-1975 (S.C.). But, unfortunately, the Assistant Collector did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collector in revision did give so some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in the representation dated 8th December, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent representation dated 4th June, 1965. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the material fact of production of new containers was suppressed by the said assessee from the Department, the extended time limit of 5 years under the proviso to S. 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act is applicable to this case." 15. In the foregoing paragraphs there is absolutely no discussion as to what materials were there to show that the appellants had removed the above quantities of metal containers. The order in this regard is a non-speaking order. 16. Further it is seen from the reply to Show Cause notice that the appellants had stated that all the documents relied on are not supplied to them. The point was raised during the adjudication proceedings. In the adjudication proceedings while recording the contentions of appellants the learned Collector stated as follows : Two letters dated 18-9-1985 and 9-8-1985 respectively of M/s. Hindusthan Lever Ltd., Attipur, 24 Parganas, have been referred to in the Show Cause notice, but the copies of their letters were not made available to the assessee company to enable them to meet the department s case squarely. 17. In spite of this argument, the same was not discussed in the adjudication order. The learned S.D.R. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
