9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) which would not serve any useful purpose, rather, it is seen that statement from the accountant is also said to have been recorded, and also there is a clear admission on the part of the assessee with regard to manufacturing of tobacco related goods without declaring to the Department which attracts duty under the Central Excise Rules. There is no bona fide on the part of the assessee in seeking to condonation of delay and it is only with the defiant intention to delay the process of recovery - Review Application dismissed - decided against applicant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were generally used to be sent to North Arcot and South Arcot Districts through ABT Parcel Service and Southern Roadways, that the finished stock of Chewing Tobacco was ascertained as 193 kgs and semi-finished goods as 584 kgs and only private accounts were maintained by him were handed over to the officers for perusal. It appears that on further verification of the godown stock register maintained for each factory for the stock held at all the four units, it was found that there was an excess of raw tobacco to the extent of 7902 kgs and it appears that when inspection was conducted with regard to VKP Firm, correspodence by M/s.TLG Radhakrishnan & Sons, Thirupathur alongwith some materials were seized. 5. Based on the incriminating materials, the assessment ordere was passed by the assessment officer viz., Additional Commissioner, calling upon assessee viz., M/s.V.K.P.K.Arivuthurai and Brothers to pay the duty to the tune of ₹ 48,74,828/- under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, with penalty of ₹ 48,74,828/- under section 11AC, a further penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules and penalty of ₹ 50,000/- each as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, by its order dated 12.11.2013. Aggrieved against the same, the civil miscellaneous appeals are filed by the assessees. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/assessees vehemently argued that neither the CESTAT nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the mind and also having raised a substantial question of law with regard to limitation, the provisions under section 14 of the Limitation Act have to be interpreted liberally to condone the delay in terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision in M.P.STEEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ((2015) 7 SCC 58), wherein at para 34 of the order, the Apex Court has held as under:- "It now remains to consider the decision of a two-Judge Bench in P.Saradhy v. S.B.I ((2000) 5 SCC 355). This judgment has held that an abortive proceedings before the appellate authority under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 would attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as the appellant in this case had been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding before the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment would contend that necessary documents sought for by the assessee were supplied to the assessee and it is recorded in the de novo order in original as evident from page No.77 to 80 of the typed set of papers wherein the list of documents furnished to the assessee and the dates and events that had taken place from June 2001 to January 2009 find place. This shows that there is no proper care or attention shown by the assessee in the conduct of the case. Apart from that it is clearly indicated that while adjudicating the matter, the documents which where not supplied to the assessee were not relied upon and the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the CESTAT had observed about the casual approach on the part of the assessee in extending their co-operation for disposal of the matter. 12. We are of the view that the Apex Court, has of course, interepreted the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and its expansion of scope holding that any authority or tribunal having the trappings of a court would be a "court". But the conduct of the assessees in dragging the matter from the year 2001 to 2013 and ultimately, when the order came to be passed, which gives rise to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty, had opted to fight the issue by exchange of communications contending that some documents were not supplied. Having seen the conduct of the assessees, as seen at pages 77 to 80 of the typed set of papers, we do not find any scope to extend any benefit and exemtion for the assessee. 15. So far as the review order is concerned, we have gone through the order passed by the Division Bench of this court passed while disposing of the civil miscellaneous appeals at SR stage alongwith the petitions to condone the delay and we are of the view that having found the attitude of the assessee, the Division Bench has come out with a remark that all is not well with the attitude of the assessee and in order to review such order by interfereing with the order passed by the Division Bench and to pass a fresh order, patent error or illegality has to be pointed out. 16. The Division Bench of this court, after considering the factual aspects in detail, has observed in paragraphs 24 to 26 of the impugned order passed that there is no bona fide on the part of the assessee in seeking to condonation of delay and it is only with the defiant intention to delay the process of recovery. The order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
