Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (6) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have given reply on such short point. So the responsibility for the flawed adjudication is shared by both sides. Now, appellants have furnished replies to the SCN. At this stage we consider it proper to remit the matter, to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh. - E/896-898 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2011 - Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Mathew John, JJ. Appearance: Appeared for Appellant : Shri C. Hari Shankar, Advocate Appeared for Respondent : Shri Sunil Kumar, DR Per Mathew John: The Appellant is a 100% EOU, which imported various metal scrap availing the benefit of Notifications No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97 and 52/2003-Cus. dated 31.3.2003. 2. Exemption under the above-mentioned Notificat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asons for passing the order without getting final replies to the Show Cause Notice. The Ld DR brought to the notice of the Tribunal the following reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority. I have gone through the brief facts of the case, all the written replies submitted from time to time and oral as well as written submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the noticees at the time of hearings held before my predecessor and me. During the course of adjudication proceedings in this case, 5 Nos., of Personal Hearing were granted to the Noticees and on five occasions, the Noticee/their counsel sought adjournment/extension of time and the same were granted. The instant Show Cause Notice was issued on 31.5.2008 and the reply .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut nothing was heard either from noticees or from their counsel till 27.1.2010 when the counsel vide letter dated 27.1.10 sought for another adjournment. I note that the show cause notice in the case was issued on 31.5.08 for the period 1.1.02 to 19.1.06. The counsel of the noticee on 2.9.09, during the course of PH, intimated the department vide his letter dated 2.9.09 that the documents relating to the present case have not been supplied to them. I am surprised that the noticees did not bother to intimate the department about non-supply of documents, immediately after receipt of the show cause notice and it took them 15 months to ask for the same. Further, I note that the noticees on subsequent period sought adjournments on the ground o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... decision, dated 26.8.08, of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the Appellant's own earlier case, in which the same evidence were relied upon. This Hon'ble Tribunal had, in the said judgment, directed that cross-examination of the said officers was required to be allowed. This was in view of the findings contained in para 3.3 of the said judgment, wherein the overseas evidence and other material relied upon to question the correctness of the value declared by the Appellant was specifically discountenanced. The said judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal was carried in Appeal, by the Revenue, to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by way of CEA 1416/2008, which, in its order dated 25.11.2008, specifically held that it was not interfering with the directions issued .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tretch of imagination, be regarded as unreasonable. (xiii) Without any further communication, the impugned Order-in-Original, running into 81 pages came to be passed within 48 hours, confirming, against the Appellant, a demand of Rs.5,15,57,631/- towards Central Excise duty. 7. After considering the rival submissions in the matter of delay in furnishing final reply to the SCN and adjudication without final reply to the SCN the Tribunal was of the view that there was some dilatory tactics adopted by the Appellant in furnishing reply to the SCN. At the same time the Appellant was not put to notice that adjudication of only a part of the allegations in SCN would be proceeded with in which case the Appellant might have given reply on such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates