9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri D.N. Panda, Member (J) [Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)].1. This Miscellaneous Application is for condonation of delay in filing of the Excise Appeal No. EDM-402/07 on 10th July, 2007 against de novo order of adjudication dated 30th March, 2007 served on the Appellant on 5-4-2007 raising duty demand of Rs. 31,14,865/-, with equal amount of penalty and interest on the duty demanded in respect of show-cause notice relating to the period 1995-96 to 1998-99 alleging no proof of export adduced calling for levy of duty and levy of demand of Rs. 41,72,954/- with equal amount of penalty and interest on duty in respect of show-cause notice alleging branded and un-branded footwear and parts thereof relating to the period 1995-96 to 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority adducing evidence in respect of clearances made for domestic sale as well as for the export they claimed. Even after remand of the matter by this forum on 2-4-2002 by order No. A-515/Kol/2000, the Appellant failed to prove its clearance with full proof to establish its stand. The ld. Authority granting fair opportunity, passed a reasoned and speaking order carrying out direction of Hon'ble Tribunal. Adequate opportunities were given to the Appellant for production of evidence to consider their claim. But they failed to plead their defence with credible evidence. Present application is merely a dilatory tactics adopted by Appellant to abuse the process of law seeking another remand to deprive Revenue from its legitimate dues. When th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted full and fair opportunity to the ld. Counsel for Appellant to show us the merit that calls for impeaching order of the ld. Authority's below and whether the appeal is devoid of merit. At the interest of Revenue, it was made clear that this Tribunal may not be inclined to keep the matter pending for long merely admitting appeal. 2.3 The ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the present litigation is in second round before this forum against the de novo order of adjudication. There was no breach of law made by Appellant. But for the opportunity not provided by the Department to adduce evidence and also for the documents available in their record not verified by them, this appeal deserves consideration. He further submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same. Revenue's cry was to direct the Appellant to make payment of entire dues to the Government dismissing appeal and stay application for the dilatory tactics 'adopted by Appellant. 3.2 Record revealed that limitation for filing of the appeal expired on 5th July, 2007 and the appeal was barred by limitation by 5 (five) days in view of filing thereof on 10th July, 2007 for service of the impugned order on 5th April, 2007 as stated in appeal memo. It was also noticed that the Appellant has made the Miscellaneous Application very casually without specifying the date on which Appeal was filed, the number of days of delay and the reasoning of such delay in order to show its vigilant attitude to seek appeal remedy. It was not even stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Para 15 of the impugned order which throws light that the Appellant was not at all deprived of due process of justice and the Department had not at all taken any view without calling for defence. 3.4 The ld. Adjudicating Authority has categorically recorded that on 29-3-2007, the Appellant submitted that they had nothing more to say apart from what they had already stated in their letter dated 15-3-2007. On being asked by the Authorities whether they had to adduce any evidence in respect of proof of export the levy submitted that those have already been submitted long back to Range Superintendent. 3.5 Veracity of submission of the Appellant was examined by the ld. Adjudicating Authority in Para 18.2 of the impugned order. Referri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te examination of the entire matter, not only the ld. Adjudicating Commissioner has rendered justice, but also seems to have rendered justice. This does not halt us to hold in favour of the Appellant that they were deprived of natural justice. The ld. Commissioner has also made categorical observations as to the conduct of the Appellant in Para 18.3 of the impugned order, which reads as under: "18.3 In their reply dated 29-5-2000, it was stated that 'original Export Invoices alongwith the shipping bills pertaining to the period of SCN is enclosed for ready reference'. However, this is contradicted in the same letter as under: for your inspection we will produce all records and documents in original at the time of personal hearing since al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
