9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in directing the Appellants to deposit Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 35F of the Act?" 5.According to the Appellants, following are the relevant facts :- 6. The appellants are a company engaged inter-alia in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, falling under Chapter Heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said ingots are manufactured from various inputs, namely, sponge iron, pig iron, cast iron and scrap iron and steel and ferro alloys, etc. For manufacture of steel ingots from the aforesaid inputs, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the appellants had failed to record the production of 16093.43 MTs in the RG 1 and had removed the said quantity in a clandestine manner. Therefore, vide show cause notice dated 25th February 2008, the appellants were asked to show cause to the respondent. According to the appellants, without granting them a personal hearing to make submissions in support of their case and without allowing cross-examination of the persons and experts whose evidence was relied upon in support of the proposal in the notice, the respondent passed the order-in-original dated 31st March 2009, in terms of which the duty demand of Rs. 3,96,21,849/- is confirmed against the appellants. Penalty of Rs. 3,96,21,849/- is also imposed and recovery of interest und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively, the department did not take any cognizance of the panchnama drawn on 8th December 2005 recording that 1434.62 units of power is consumed for 1 MT of ingots, but only took cognizance of the panchnama drawn on 12th December 2005 recording that 1239 units of power is consumed for 1 MT of ingots. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the appellants that the conduct on the part of the respondent is totally unfair. It is also submitted that the respondent admittedly allowed the appellants to cross-examine one of the witnesses and thereafter, did not allow cross-examination of the other witnesses whose evidence was relied upon by the respondent in support of the proposal in their notice. It is submitted that the finding of the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants as well as the respondent, a consensus was reached that the appellants may be allowed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- as pre-deposit instead of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 22nd March 2010. Under the circumstances, we pass the following order :- (i) The appellants shall deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards pre-deposit within a period of eight weeks from today. (ii) Upon deposit of the said amount by the appellants, the Appellate Tribunal shall hear the Appeal filed by the appellants from the order-in-original dated 31st March 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur, on merits, without being in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
