9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-rule (2) of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This was on 6-8-97. On the same day, the appellants filed D-3 intimation about receipt of the goods with the jurisdictional Central Excise Range Officer and also submitted an application to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, as follows :- Since the goods have been received after a period of one year from the date of clearance from the factory, permission may kindly be accorded for the same in relaxation of the period in first proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 173H, orders for extension of the period may kindly be passed and conveyed to us. The customer has not returned the original and duplicate copy of Invoice along with the goods because firstly it relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to M/s. Vikas Mines Pvt. Ltd. as also to impose penalty on the appellants for alleged contravention of Rule 173H. The proposals were contested. In adjudication, the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty against the party on the entire crane and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. In the appeal preferred by the aggrieved party against the order of adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were liable to pay duty of excise on those crane parts which were returned by the buyer and subsequently recleared to them after repairs. The lower appellate authority accordingly remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh quantification of duty. The present appeal is against the order of the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position was satisfactorily clarified by the appellants in their reply dated 1-10-97 submitted to the Central Excise Range Superintendent in answer to the latter's queries. Ld. Advocate submits that the reason why the returned goods were not covered by any copy of invoice had been clearly stated in the application dated 6-8-97 itself. But these pleadings were not considered by the Asstt. Commissioner as evidenced by his letter dated 24-10-97. Ld. Counsel, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned proceedings on the ground of violation of natural justice. 5. Ld. JDR, Shri S.C. Pushkarna reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have examined the submissions. The crane was cleared on payment of duty by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion filed under the second and third provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 173H required to be considered on its merits by the Asstt. Commissioner (who had such powers during the material period under delegation by the Commissioner) in his quasi-judicial capacity. It is without having exercised this power in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice that the Asstt. Commissioner issued the letter dated 24-10-97 to the party. The show-cause notice issued on 27-10-97 proposing to recover duty of excise on the crane has, therefore, to be held to be vitiated by negation of natural justice. However, since the party has not taken such a plea against the show-cause notice, I am not inclined to set aside the show-cause notice. The show-ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
