9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 29 crore to M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. - impugned order is required to be set aside and matter is required to be remanded for reconsideration and fresh adjudication - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/57080, 57227-57229, 58049-58050 & 58861/2013-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos. A/51450-51456/2014-EX(DB) - Dated:- 6-3-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri K.K. Anand and Ms. Sujata Shirolokar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Promod Kumar, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) (for the Bench)]. - All the matters are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by the Commissioner vide which he has confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. According to the learned DR appearing for the Revenue, the joint confirmation is on the ground that though the cigarettes were actually being manufactured by KCL under a franchise agreement and are being sold to M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. It is actually the GTC Industries which is controlling party and as such, all the clandestine removal made by KCL have to be directed against M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. 3. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned advocate that M/s. KCL was independent manufacturer of cigarettes and according to the well established law, the duty, if any, on the allegation of clandestine removal, in terms of provisions of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, has to be directed towards the manufacturer and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fresh adjudication. Learned advocate has also raised grievance that relied upon documents were not provided to him, even though the show cause notice was issued on 30-9-1995 and they have made repeated requests for supply of the documents. Ultimately the appellant had to write to Commissioner vide their letter dated 3-8-2011 that in case, some of the documents were not available, they should be kept out of consideration and should not be relied upon by the adjudicating authority. 7. As per the learned DR, the supply of all the documents was completed and wherever the documents could not be supplied to them, the same has not been relied upon. 8. Learned advocate also has his grievance about the issue of cross examination of the certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove. Inasmuch as the matter is around 19 years old, we expect the AR Commissioner to do the re-adjudication as early as possible, but not later than 6 months from today. Needless to say that the appellant would co-operate in the adjudication proceedings and would not seek unnecessary adjournment. 11. All stay petitions as also appeals get disposed of in the above manner. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court) 12. [Per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - While I fully agree with the conclusion of my learned sister, I am of the view that certain very disturbing aspects of this matter which have not been dealt with in the order, need to be pointed out. 13. The duty demand of ₹ 29,53,36,51/- demanded from M/s. Kanpur Cigarette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as possible. However, it is seen that the Department has taken about 18 years in supplying the relied upon documents and still the assessee s grievance is that some of the relied upon documents asked for by them have not been supplied. Even after 18 years when this matter was adjudicated, the adjudication has been done in a most careless manner and without ensuring that all the relied upon documents and non-relied upon documents asked for assessee are supplied to them so that they could not use this grievance as a handle to delay the adjudication proceedings. The non-supply of relied documents as well as non-relied upon documents, is surprising as there was specific Circular No. 171/5/96-CX, dated 2-2-1996 of the Board in this regard accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 49,63,87,299/- for the period from Oct. 92 to March 92 and which had been handled in a similar careless manner. There is another matter against M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. involving duty of ₹ 30,85,63,693/- for the period prior to Sept. 96 and dealt with in Tribunal s Order reported in 2012 (282) E.L.T. 385 (Tri.-Del.), which has also been handled in the same manner. In both these cases involving total duty of about ₹ 81 Crore, the adjudication have been delayed on account of delay in supply of the relied upon/non-relied upon documents and Adjudication Orders passed after such a long delay had been passed in such a careless manner that the same had to be remanded for de novo adjudication. 13.2 In all the three cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
