9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his single order. Both the sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty indicated against each applicant : 2. Name of the party Duty Penalty (in Rs.) M/s. Avadh Transport A. No. E/944/01-Mum. - 16,00,000 A. No. E/945 3,00,000 A. No. E/946 3,00,000 A. No. E/947 3,00,000 A. No. E/948 7,50,000 M/s. Gupta Cranes Storages P. Ltd. A. No. E/949 16,00,000 A. No. E/950 3,00,000 A. No. E/951 8,00,000 A. No. E/953 7,50,000 A. No. E/1011 3,00,000 A. No. E/1322/01 20,00,000 A. No. E/1323/01 6,00,000 A. No. E/1324/01 2,00,000 A. No. E/1325/01 10,00,000 A. No. E/1326/01 10,00,000 M/s. JBF Inds. Ltd. A. No. E/986/01 3,95,16,109 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e engaged in the manufacture of twisted yarn/polyester texturised yarn. They were located at Silvassa. The Director General of Anti-Evasion investigated the intelligence of under-valuation and evasion on the part of M/s. JBF. Enquiries revealed that RG 1 registers maintained by M/s. JBF did not show the details such as denierage etc. of the twisted/texturised yarn. It was found that the invoices issued under Rule 52A bore only the names of the buyers and did not contain details such as their address etc. It was found that the goods leaving the factory were taken to ware houses in Bivandi where they were stored. The brokers used to locate the potential buyers and used to introduce them to M/s. JBF. The prices for such yarn were negotiated by the buyers and M/s. JBF and the payments were made by way of third party bearer cheque. These goods were then lifted by the buyers from the ware houses on the basis of the delivery orders given by the Head Office of the M/s. JBF. The local movements were done by transporters. The transporters were found to have in their possession a number of rubber stamps bearing the names of different parties which rubber stamps were impressed on the delivery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formal reply but had found that certain other documents which were not relied upon in the show cause notice which would assist them in drafting the reply had not been given to them and, therefore, they made a request for the supply thereof. There was no response. M/s. JBF kept on reiterating the request vide their subsequent letters dated 4-12-2000, 22-12-2000 and 1-1-2001. However, on 1-1-2001, M/s. JBF filed an interim reply. On 5-1-2001, the order-in-original dated 26-12-2000 was received by them. On 3-1-2001, the Commissioner (Adj.) issued a corrigendum referring to her order now impugned before us to the effect that the date of order 26-12-2000 should be read as 27-11-2000 . Subsequent to the receipt of the order also M/s. JBF continued to request for supply of documents addressing their letters to DGAE. 6. Shri Chandrasekharan maintained that in the absence of the documents relied upon, the assessee could not make effective defence. This was brought to the notice of the Commissioner repeatedly. In the face of lack of supply of document also the Commissioner passed the impugned orders. Shri Chandrasekharan maintained that the orders suffer from denial of natural justice a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 the assessee s stand on the various allegations made in the show cause notice was communicated to the Commissioner. The communication was termed as an interim reply. This reply was received by the Commissioner s office on 28-2-2001. At that time, the order had not been issued. Shri Sridharan referred to Adjudication Manual, Third Edition issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs for use of the departmental officers. In Paragraph 24 of the said Manual, the officers have been advised that if during the period between the completion of the draft order and its issue, a request for personal hearing was received, then it should be invariably granted. The Counsel submitted that the interim reply, as shown above, had been received by the ld. Commissioner during this interval. However, perusal of paragraphs 22 to 24 of the impugned order shows that no cogent action was taken during this interval. He submitted that apart from the argument of Shri Chandrasekharan adopted by him, on this additional ground also the denial of natural justice is clear. He further submits that the Tribunal in passing the Final Order No. 147-150/92-C had taken cognizance of these instructions in the Adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts placed before us as also from the arguments made, it is very clear that this was not done. 15. In the case of Blue Blends India Ltd. and others, we find one more instance of such denial. In terms of letter dated 7-12-2001, the ld. Commissioner had scheduled the hearing on 29-12-2001. The impugned order, however, was passed on this very date. 16. In the case of M/s. JBF, personal hearing was rescheduled on 24-11-2001 and the impugned order was made on 27-11-2001 as per the corrigendum issued. 17. We thus find that in dealing with the various issues raised in the various show cause notices and in passing the adjudication orders now impugned before us, the ld. Commissioner had not given sufficient opportunity to the various appellants to state their case before her. Her orders, therefore, suffer from denial of natural justice and do not sustain. We set aside the same. 18. The appeals are allowed. The proceedings are remanded back to the appropriate jurisdictional authority for adjudication de novo. Since the revenue involved is large and since the number of assesseess and other persons are also large, we deem it proper to prescribe a time frame for the de novo proceedings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
