9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. The Tribunal also recorded the submissions of the Appellants in para 4 of the order which is reproduced "4. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Id. Consultant narrating the facts, submits that the allegation in the show-cause notice is that the applicants were getting 'duta' brand of washing powder manufactured from others. He submits that inspite of producing detailed evidences about the persons who 4 were actually packing 'duta' brand of washing powder into packs of 1 kg and 500 gms, the authorities below did not raise the duty demand against them. The admitted position in the show-cause notices was that the goods were being manufactured on behalf of the applicants. He submits that the applicants were not the manufacturers and therefore, the duty demand cannot be enforced against them. He submits that since the applicants produced a lot of evidences which were not at all considered by the authorities below, the question of confirming demand or imposition of penalty did not arise. He therefore, prayed that the predeposit of duty and penalty may be waived." 1.3 Show cause notices were issued on 31-5-99 to all the four Appellants consequent upon a search made to the premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . G.S. Chemicals and M/s. R.G. Chemicals and penalty was imposed on all four noticees. 1.4 In de novo adjudication, the self same demand what was raised by the original order of adjudication dated 16-7-01 was raised against Appellant Nos. 2 to 4, but a token penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was levied on M/s. Cookme Enterprises. Interest levy was made under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the duty demanded. 2.1 In the course of hearing, the Id Consultant, Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, appearing for the Appellants submitted that although this Tribunal by order dated 15-1-02 directed that the id. Adjudicating Authority to examine the contentions of the Appellants in the light of the evidences observing that a lot at of evidences were available on record, were not examined in the light of the contention of the Appellants in para 4 of the Tribunal's Order. The Id. Adjudicating Authority simply following empty formalities, passed the impugned order and on 26-5-04 confirmed that demand that was raised in the adjudication made earlier vide order dated 16-7-01. Neither any of the submissions of the Appellants was recorded nor the evidences ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record showing that any manufacturing activity was carried out by the Appellants in their place of business. The only allegation of the Department was that the Appellant did not dispute dutiability of the branded washing powder. When there was no manufacture at all done by the Appellant, there is no question of dutiability for no product manufactured. The Appellants were only traders and as a middle man supplied the goods to M/s. Cookme Enterprises manufactured by M/s. Samrat Chemicals and M/s Ankit Chemicals. The Id. Adjudicating Authority in the de novo order only relying on the letter dated 8-5-95, a copy of which is filed as Annexure I at page 137 of the Paper Book, held against the Appellants. The period alleged being June, 1994 to Au gust, 1996, the letter dated 8th May, 1995 shall have no meaning. Even that letter was also not put to test for rebuttal. Without conducting any visit or enquiry by Officers, the matter was decided under surmise and suspicion. The ld. Consult ant also invited attention to the inventory records and documents seized from the premises of M/s. Samrat Chemicals. A copy of such document is available at page 67 of the Paper Book. 2.5 Ld. Consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot even a single submission of the Appellants was recorded by the id. Adjudicating Authority in the de novo order of adjudication nor also the bunch of evidences available in re cord, few of which were submitted in the Paper Book, were considered by the said Authority. Only merely relying upon on the letter dated 8-5-95 as stated aforesaid, the Authority proceeded to confirm the order earlier passed on 16-7-01. There was no spot enquiry conducted to negate the stand of Appellant that it has no factory nor manufacturing operation carried out thereat. It is not possible to understand the reason why such hasty approach was made by the ld. Adjudicating Authority to by-pass the direction of the Tribunal when huge demand was raised with allegation and counter allegations. The order appears to be totally un-reasoned and cryptic and passed under suspicion and surmise for the own observation by the ld. Adjudicating Authority at page 4 of the impugned order that "it has been suspected in the Show Cause Memo itself that it is possible that Shri Chakraborty paid money to Shri Sambhu Shah to get the branded washing powder manufactured." The impugned order has become un-sustainable following the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties may stultify the powers of the court simply by not recording reasons in support of their decisions or by refraining from communicating such reasons to the affected person. This is the reason why the courts have insisted on rigorous compliance with the requirement of re cording of reasons and communication thereof by every quasi-judicial authority. Some of the judicial precedents, which can appropriately be cited to support the above-mentioned proposition, are (1) Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala [1961] 31 Comp Cas 387 (SC); AIR 1961 SC 1669; (2) Bhngal Raja v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1606; (3) Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 862; (4) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U. P., AIR 1970 SC 1302 (5) Woolcoinbers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union, AIR 1973 SC 2758, (6) Ajantha industries v.. Central Board of Direct Taxes [ 102 I.T.R. 281(SC); AIR 1976 SC 437; (7) Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of In dia, AIR 1976 SC 1785 (8) S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; (9) Shanti Prasad Agarwalla v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC814; (10) Krishna Swami v. Unio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
