9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 4471024/-along with interest and has not imposed any penalty. Applicant department has not challenged the above said finding of appellate authority that DCCE has unlimited power to accept/reject proof of export. So, the DCCE was competent to pass said order. Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the ground of compliance of principles of natural justice and allowed both appeals by setting aside the order-in-original. Government notes that Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the document submitted as proof of export and did not give any finding on the proof of export submitted by party and erred inpassing an order which is bad in law. Government therefore is of view that matter is required to b remanded back for considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting proof of exports on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted and order was passed ex-parte violating the principles of natural justice. 2.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No.US/9 10/M-II/2012 dated 17.1.2012, observed that there is no prescribed monetary limit for adjudication by AC/DCCE, original authority in this case, for acceptance of proof of export. However said monetary limit is prescribed for adjudication of a case involving duty upto ₹ 5.00 lakh . for imposition of fine and penalty. Commissioner further held that order-in-original passed without giving hearing is bad in law. As such Commissioner (Appeals) allowed both the appeals and. set aside the impugned order-in-original. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircular is issued in light of Hon'ble Apex Court judgements it is binding on the department. 3.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in his findings in as much as he did not consider the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court judgements and Board's instructions while issuing the subject order. 3.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in his findings in as much as that he has only considered the contention of the assesse that they have not given personal hearing and the principles of natural justice was not extended. It is thus found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not gone into the merits of the case before coming to the conclusion to set aside the order. 3.5 Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads this as the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration; The respondents humbly submit that it is a fact that they were not given a chance to be heard by adjudicating authority, who violating principle of natural justice and passed the impugned 010. As such, it is not true as submitted by Asst. Commissioner as quoted above that. Commissioner (Appeals), when recorded non-observance of principle of natural justice by the adjudicating authority, had not gone into merits of the case. Rather Commissioner (Appeals) had duly recorded the contention of the department as well as stated in the very OIA as 'Revenue's only contention is that the confirmation of demand of ₹ 44,71,024/ was beyond t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri R.K. Sharma Advocate on behalf of the respondents who reiterated the submissions made in their written reply dated 13.12.13. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, oral written submissions and perused the impugned orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal. 7 Government observes that the original authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide impugned order-in-original ordered for recovery of duty by rejecting proof of exports in the instant cases. Both the applicant department as well as respondent party filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that impugned order-in-original is beyond his powers of adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellate authority has given a categorical finding with respect to powers of adjudication and held that in the matter of imposition of penalty, AC/DCCE cannot adjudicate cases involving duty of more than ₹ 5.00 lakhs. He has also held that in the matter of acceptance of proof of export, there is no prescribed monetary limit for adjudication of case. In these cases the DCCE vide impugned order-in-original dated 28.7.11 has rejected the proof of export and ordered for recovery of duty to the extent of ₹ 4471024/-along with interest and has not imposed any penalty. Applicant department has not challenged the above said finding of appellate authority that DCCE has unlimited power to accept/reject proof of export. So, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
