9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh High Court, but still the relied upon documents could have been supplied as there was no stay on the same, matter is still un-adjudicated and the impugned order bearing 26-5-2010 has been issued but it is signed by the Commissioner who had retired in 2008. The order passed after 15 years is an ex parte and non-speaking order supposed to have been issued by an officer who had retired long time back, matter involving huge revenue being now 15 years old, we consider it appropriate to direct the Chairman of Central Board of Excise & Customs to monitor the de novo adjudication, appeals and the stay applications are disposed of - 3770, 3108, 3076-3080, 3074-3075, 3771-3773 and 3811, 3936/2010 - 347-359 & 359-A/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 21-4-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Sujata Sherolkar and Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Nitin Anand, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. These are the appeals against the Order-in-Original No V(24)l-GTC(MPTL)Adj/95, dated 26-5-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Delhi, by which the Commissioner has - (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and that the duty involved on these clandestine clearances was Rs. 49,63,87,299/-. 3. Though this matter was listed today for hearing of the stay applications only, after hearing the stay applications for some time, we are of the view that this matter can be disposed of at this stage only and there is no point in keeping the same pending. Accordingly, the matter was heard for final disposal. 4. Heard both the sides. 5. Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellants, pleaded that the order itself is defective as well as non-est inasmuch as it has been passed on 26th May, 2010 by the Commissioner who was no longer in service at that time as he had retired in 2008, that the allegations of duty evasion against the appellants are based on very larger number of records running into about one lakh twenty thousand pages, the copies of which had not been supplied along with show cause notice, that though the inspection/supply of copies of the relied upon documents had been allowed by the adjudicating authority and that process was going on, without even completion of that process, without giving opportunity to the appellants to submit replies to show cause notice, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the documents has not been completed. From para 3 of the adjudication order it is clear that the relied upon documents, being too numerous and voluminous, their photocopies had not been supplied and only their inspection and obtaining copies of the documents required by the appellants had been allowed. Para 8 to 22 discuss the efforts made by the Department for completing the inspection of documents by the appellant, while the appellant pleaded that inspection of relied upon documents was not complete. From the records of this case, it is seen that even till April of 2010, there was correspondence between DG, Central Excise Intelligence and the Appellants regarding supply of relied upon documents, as in the letter dated 9-4-2010 of Addl. Director, DG, CEI, the appellants had been informed that efforts are being made to supply the copies of the relied upon documents as early as possible. This shows that even till April, 2010, all the relied upon documents had not been supplied to the appellants. 8. Even if the appellants were not cooperating with the department in completion of the inspection of documents, and the Commissioner felt it necessary to decide this matter ex parte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of this order. The appellants shall extend full cooperation to the department in this regard. The documents in respect of which the department has clear evidence that the same have already been supplied to the appellants, need not be supplied again. In order to expedite this process, the Department should consider scanning the relied upon documents and handing over the same to noticees in CDs or in USB storage devices; (b) After completion of the inspection/supply of the relied upon documents, the process of submitting the reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing shall be completed within a period of 4 months; (c) After completion of personal hearing, the adjudicating authority shall pass the order within two months; The above time limits for inspection/supply of relied upon documents, submitting reply to the show cause notice, personal hearing and passing of the adjudication order are only the outer limits. We expect both the sides to make sure that the entire de novo adjudication proceedings are completed much earlier. Needless to say, the order passed by the Commissioner must be a speaking and well reasoned order. 11. Before parting, we can not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 years from the date of issue of show cause notice, the appellants claim that all the relied upon documents have not been supplied/allowed to be inspected, which is clear from the letter dated 9-4-2010 of Addl. Director, DGCEI. Even if there was stay on adjudication proceedings by the order of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, but still the relied upon documents could have been supplied as there was no stay on the same. Even the stay on adjudication proceedings was vacated in 2006 but even then, for four years no action was taken for completing the adjudication proceedings in a proper manner. It appears that only in May 2010 the department woke up to the fact that the matter is still un-adjudicated and the impugned order bearing 26-5-2010 has been issued but it is signed by the Commissioner who had retired in 2008. The order passed after 15 years is an ex parte and non-speaking order supposed to have been issued by an officer who had retired long time back. Issuing such an unsustainable order will only help the appellants in further delaying the adjudication of this matter, which discussed above suits only the appellants as their interest savings by now in the event of confirmati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
