9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sra and Dr. I.P. Lal, JJ. For the Appellant: Sri Samir Chakraborty, Advocate Sri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri S. Misra, Additional Commissioner (A.R.) ORDER Per DR.D.M. MISRA: The present applications are filed by Applicant No.1, M/s Tata Steel Ltd. seeking waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs.34.62 crores and penalty of Rs.33.10 crores and by other Applicants seeking waiver of personal penalty of Rs.10.00 Lakhs, imposed on each of them. 2. The Ld. Sr. Advocate Dr. Samir Chakraborty, for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no.1 had been extended the facility of consolidated debit of Central Excise Duty against clearances made during the day, instead of making debit against clearances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s payment of Rs.4,67,84,431/- was also made and required to be considered. The Ld. Advocate has submitted that even though the statement was referred to and said to have been considered in the impugned Order, but the applicants were not given an opportunity, to explain wherever their explanation in the statement, was not considered and rejected. However, the Ld. Sr. Advocate made a fair offer to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.6.00 crores. 3. The Ld. A.R. (Addl. Commissioner) on the other hand submitted that the adjudicating authority had considered the statement in detail and reduced the liability from Rs.45,91,24,705.76 to Rs.34,62,23,989.89. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that their explanation in the form of statement was not considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereby, they have submitted that there has been a short payment of Rs.4.82 crores but also claimed that an excess payment of Rs.4.76 crores were also made. It is their grievance that that the reconciliation statement furnished by them, during the adjudication proceeding, were not properly scrutinized and appreciated by the adjudicating authority and they were not given a chance, to explain it further, by the Ld. Commissioner, who unilaterally interpreted the said statement and concluded the short payment of duty of Rs.34.62 crores. We find that the issue involved is scrutiny of rival claims on the correctness of inclusion and/or exclusion of clearance documents/invoices in the recapitulation statement and consequent discharge of duty during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
