9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on them. Shri Nikhil Bansal, the other appellant, a Director of the said company, is aggrieved by the penalty imposed on him. The above demand of duty is on MS Ingots found to have been clandestinely manufactured and removed by the company during the period February, 2004 to July, 2006. The relevant show-cause notice was issued by the department on 8-8-2008 invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The investigation culminating in the show-cause notice was commenced as early as in December, 2005, when the investigating officers of the department visited the appellant s factory and conducted experiments estimating the quantity of final product which might have been manufactured by making use of the electrical energ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation, the show-cause notice proposed to appropriate the same. Having invoked the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts etc., the notice also proposed a penalty on the appellant-company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Separate penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was also proposed on the company, besides a penalty on the Director under Rule 26. 4. In their reply dated 12-12-2008, the appellants requested the adjudicating authority - (a) to supply copies of all the documents mentioned in the list of documents appended to the notice, (b) to supply the records mentioned in the panchnama, (c) to supply English translation of the statements and documents recorded in Hindi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel, the Commissioner could not have signed the order on 1-6-2009, inasmuch as, on that date, his successor assumed charge as Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. Though we are not inclined to give much credence to this submission of the Counsel, we are appreciative of the plea of negation of natural justice. It is on record that the Panchnama dated 8-12-2005 contained the record of experiments by the departmental officers in the appellant s factory. Those experiments yielded a formula by which the total production of MS Ingots for the period of dispute could be worked out. The said formula, however, was not relied upon in the show-cause notice or the Commissioner s order. What was relied upon by the department is the opinion of the IIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the case be adjudicated afresh. 7. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals by way of remand directing the learned Commissioner to pass fresh order of adjudication in accordance with law after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of (a) obtaining English translation of all Hindi documents, (b) cross-examination of the witnesses named in the preliminary reply dated 12-12-2008, and (c) being personally heard. It goes without saying that the evidence collected by the investigating officers through the Panchnama cannot be rejected without stating cogent reasons. We trust, a speaking order will be passed by the learned Commissioner on all issues. (Dictated and pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
