9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The operative part of the remand order of the Tribunal reads as under "We have carefully considered the matter. On going through the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the impugned order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice. As it was rightly out by the Counsel the adjudicating authority has not given any reason in not allowing the cross-examination. In view of this position, we have no alternative but to send the mailer back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. In the view we have taken, we are remanding the matter to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh and to pass an approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 claimed and availed in respect of 6654.00 M/s of scrap by M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd. valued at Rs. 4,03,56,449/- (A.V.) (b) I confirms the demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,69,28,336/- under proviso to Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962 together with interest as applicable under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 from M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd. (c) I order confiscation of 654.00 M/s of scrap imported under Notification No. 83/90-Cus. valued at Rs. 4,03,56,449/- under Section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not avail able for confiscation, I impose a fine of Rs. 80,00,000/-(Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in lieu of confiscation. (d) I impose a penalty of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Shri Y.S. Choudhary, Chairman Sujana Group of Companies under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (d) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) on Shri N.S. Aiyangar, Finance Manager of Sujana Steel Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 4. M/s. SSL, appellants in Appeal No. C/571/2005, challenge the demand of differential duty confirmed against them and also the fine and penalty imposed on them. M/s. Sujana Industries Ltd. (M/s. SIL, for short), appellants in Appeal No. C/567/2005, have offered a similar challenge against the Commissioner's order demanding differential duty and imposing fine and penalty. The remaining appellants are challenging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalties under Section 112 of the Act. These proposals were upheld by the Commissioner in the remanded proceedings also. Challenging the Commissioner's decision, the appellants argue that the allegation of diversion of the scrap is unfounded inasmuch as the end-use certificates issued by the jurisdictional Asst. Collector of Central Excise were produced by both the importers in respect of the above scrap, barring a small quantity (205 Mts) imported by M/s. SIL 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the said certificates were accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-I, who dropped the proposal to deny Cenvat credit on the same scrap which was received in the manufacturing unit at Hyderabad after its clearance thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the idea to cross-examine as many as 35 witnesses is an after-thought of the above parties. 8. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that, before the Tribunal in the first round of litigation, M/s. SSL and M/s. SIL wanted to cross-examine only 8 witnesses, whose names figure in Para 18 of the impugned order. Admittedly, two out of these eight persons were cross- examined before the Commissioner pursuant to the Tribunal's remand order. For one reason or other, the remaining six persons could not be cross-examined and the impugned order happened to be passed ex parte. We are not inclined to accept the suggestion that more than these six persons be allowed to be cross- examined in the next round. We have two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main issue going to be settled by the co-ordinate Bench is whether M/s. SSL M/s. SIL were entitled to take Cenvat credit of CVD paid on the scrap. Whether this input was received in their factory is an allied question, the decision whereon will have a bearing on the case which we n remand to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. 10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed by way of remand, with a direction to learned Commissioner of Customs to pass fresh order of adjudication on all issues in the light of the final order which will be passed by the Tribunal's Bangalore Bench in the appeals filed by the department and the parties against Order-in-Original No. 21/2005 dated 18- 10-2005 of the CCE Hyder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
