9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 101/72 dated 17-3-1972 and also that the total value of steel furniture cleared during 1972-1973 came to Rs. 1,53,723.63 P. plus Rs. 1 lakh i.e. Rs. 2,53,723.63 P. As I fully agree with the conclusion reached by the then Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur I confirm the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur in aforesaid order-in-original No. 38/Collr/MP/78 dated 30-6-1978. 2. The appellants grievance is that the Tribunal had set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur in order-in-original dated 30-6-1978and the said order is non est and its confirmation is neither legal nor proper and that the learned Collector ought to have complied with the terms of the remand order and should have independently applied her mind to give detailed reasoning. It is also contended that the Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to readjudicate the case within 4 months, as the learned Collector had not re-adjudicated within 4 months, the impugned order had become invalid as having been passed beyond jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction and therefore, is null and void and requires to be set aside. The next grievance of the appellants is that the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to inspect in relation to the aforesaid adjudication case. As there was no response from them, another letter dated 12-12-1989 was issued for which the Manager of the appellant company informed the department that they submit their response after their Prop., Shri K.K. Mehra was available in Kanpur. As there was no response another reminder was issued to the party on 21-12-1989. In response to this letter, they replied vide letter dated 26-12-1989 that they wanted to inspect the same records in your possession which were put up for inspection in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur in case No. 4378/81 and 4379/81 related to above matter filed by you. In the impugned order at para 4, it is related that an attempt was made to ascertain as to what were the records which were put up for inspection in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the two cases. In the meantime, the party vide their letter dated 15-1-1990, informed the department that the 4 months fixed by the Tribunal for readjudication, had expired and that there was no jurisdiction left with the officers to now commence the de novo proceedings. The department by its letter dated 6-3-1990, informed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sale bill book for office 1972, 1973 7. Sales challans for works and of-fice 1972, 1973 Office Work 8. Document filed by us before Collector Board of Central Excise ....... The learned Collector has not fixed any date of hearing but has passed the impugned order. In para 7, the learned Collector has held that in the original show cause notice, the department had relied on the following documents only 1. Recovery Memo dated 11-10-1973 2. Statement of Sh. Kripa Shanker, Manager of the firm dated 11-10-1973 3. RG I register 4. Journal of the firm for 1973 5. Ledger of the firm for 1973 6. Cash book of the firm for 1973 7. Bill books The learned Collector has held that the party was given opportunity to inspect the records of the case on any working day vide office letter dated 6-1-1975 and that they had not come forward for inspection of such records but by their letter dated 30-10-1977 the party had requested for personal hearing and again requested for consultation of records. It is stated in the order that despite such delaying tactics the adjudicating authority permitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Charan Metal Corp. to inspect the records and submit their defence. From the final written submissions made before the adjudicating officer, it is apparent that M/s. Charan Metal Corp. did not have any grievance with regard to non-inspection of any records. It is apparent from the appeal before the CBEC also that they did not have any such grievance about non-inspection of records. The learned Collector rejecting their prayer, has held that the party is trying to circumvent to departmental proceedings through such unreasonable requests for inspection of records at this stage of revision petition and have in fact, successfully benefited by creating confusion and postponing the due process of law. It is pointed out before us by the learned Consultant that the above observations of the learned Collector were neither called for nor justifiable. He pointed out that the learned Collector had in 17 relied on records seized, which mentioned (in Col A. B. C) the cash book of 1973, 3 bills in 5 pages (documents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) relied upon in the impugned show cause notice. Some of these relied documents of the year 1973 pertaining to the case had not been allowed inspection de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to produce rebuttal evidence which is in their favour. The adjudicating authority should play fair inasmuch as, they should give personal hearing and all points on which the party has urged, should be fully considered by discussing the merits and demerits of the case and a speaking order should be issued. The party on their part, should fully cooperate with; the adjudicating authority and not come in the way of adjudication by raising frivolous and unwanted objections. The party should also not obstruct the proceedings and cause delay in the adjudication. In this matter, unfortunately, the party having succeeded in getting the remand, has not cooperated with the authority in giving the list of documents which are required for inspection despite several reminders by the department. Ultimately, they have furnished the-details by a list of documents, which according to the Collector, is not required to be shown as they were not relied upon by the department. The learned Collector has also held that the SDR had not made proper representation which resulted in the remand order. It has to be pointed out that such an observation by the learned Collector was not necessary and it was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
