9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h proviso (1) to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (b) Imposed penalty of Rs. 49 Crores on M/s. MPTL/GTC under Rule 9(2), 52A, 226, 209(1) (a) and 209(1) (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, (c) Imposed penalty of Rs. 1 Crore on GTC under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, (d) Ordered confiscation of 58 CFCs of Esquire filter cigarettes valued at Rs. 3,18,768/- seized from the godown of M/s. Kabra Enterprises, Bhilai under Rule 209(1) (a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,18,768/- in addition to the duty leviable thereon; (e) Imposed penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh on M/s. Kabra Enterprises, Bhilai under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (f) Imposed penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh each under Rule 209 and 209A of the Central Excise Rules on Shri Sanjay Dalmia, Shri Anurag Dalmia, Shri S.K. Mukherjee, Shri J.P. Khetan, Shri Raj Kumar, Shri G. Nagpal, Shri Anil Kumar Chakraborty and Shri H.R. Sarawgi; and (g) Imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of inspection/supply of relied upon documents and not the hearing on merits of the case, that as can be seen from the order, the same does not contain the submissions of the appellants, that though the department claims that the impugned order had been passed on 29-9-2000, there is no such indication on the body of the order, as the date of the order, as mentioned on the order is 26-5-2010 and it has been signed by an officer, who has retired long time back, that the order is non-est and also is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and that in view of this, the same is not sustainable. 6. Shri Nitin Anand, ld. Departmental Representative pleaded that the order had been signed by the adjudicating authority on 29-9-2000 but it was not issued on account of stay on the proceedings granted by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order dated 30-9-2000, that the order was in existence on 29-9-2000, that the order was issued only after the stay on the proceeding was vacated and the appellants' writ petition was dismissed in 2006, that the appellants were deliberately delaying the proceedings of inspection of the documents, that ample opportunity of heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s summarily arrived at conclusions without recording any reasons and without discussing the evidence on record, on which these conclusions are based. 9. Moreover, the order has been passed by Shri T.V. Sairam, the then Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Delhi and the date of the order, as mentioned on it is 26-5-2010, while he had retired long time back and he could not have passed this order on 26th May, 2010. Though the department claims that this order had been signed by the Commissioner on 29-9-2000, there is no such indication in the order. In the cases where the order is signed by the adjudicating authority on a particular date and is dispatched subsequently, two dates are mentioned on the order, the date of order i.e. the date on which the order had been signed by the adjudicating authority and the date of issue of the order. But this order simply mentions its date as 26-5-2010. We are fail to understand as to how this order could have been passed in May, 2010 by the Commissioner, who has retired long time back. 10. In view of the above, this order cannot be sustained and there is no option but to remand this matter back to the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Director and Directors face serious allegations of duty evasion to the tune of Rs. 49 Crores in respect of clandestine clearances of cigarettes made from the factory of MPTL without payment of duty during October, 90 to March, 95 and MPTL is alleged to be a dummy unit controlled by GTC. These allegations appear to be based on documentary evidence consisting of statements and seized records running into more than one lakh pages. Since the period of dispute is prior to September, 1996, the provisions of interest on duty under Section 11AB are not applicable and the only way interest on duty demand, if any confirmed, could be charged was by invoking Section 11AA, under which interest is to be charged on the duty demand confirmed under Section 11A(2), if the assessee does not pay the same within the period of three months from the date of confirmation of duty demand and this called for adjudication of the show cause notice dated 29-9-95 as early as possible, as delay in adjudication would suit the appellants. Since the case against the Appellants was based on a large number of documents, it was expected that all the relied upon documents would be indexed and either their copies woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
