9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndation in any adjudication, if the principle of natural justice is not followed, the adjudication would become meaningless. It is also observed that the appellant have heavily contended that the alleged clandestine removal is trading activity of alleged clandestinely removed goods. It appears that no proper documents were produced in the earlier adjudication, however, an opportunity is given to the appellant to produce all the documents in support of their claim of trading activity. Penalty on Sh. Mahendra G Duggad, partner of the firm - Held that:- The partnership firm was already proposed the demand of duty and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, therefore, separate penalty on the partner cannot be imposed. Appeal is disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial quantity of stock in balance, however, at the time surrender of certificate, no stock was available. Therefore, it was concluded that the appellant have removed the goods clandestinely involving duty amount of ₹ 70,02,020/-, interest was also demanded under Section 11AB, a penalty of equal amount of duty was imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. A penalty of ₹ 15 Lacs was also imposed on Sh. Mahendra G. Duggad partner of partnership firm under the Provision of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Sh. N.K. Oza Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed without giving cross examination of crucial persons, the request of the cross examination was denied by the adjudicating authority. In this support he relied upon the decision of M/s Arsh Castings Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE Chandigarh 1996 (081) ELT 0276 (T). He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of M/s Emmtex Synthetics Ltd Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2003 (151) ELT 0170 (T). He also placed reliance following the judgment of M/s Takshila Spinners Vs. CCE- chandigarh 2001 (131) ELT 0568 (T). Shalimar Agencies 2000 (120) ELT 0166 (T) Balbir Steel (P) Ltd 1999 (114) ELT 0561 (T) Sita Ram 1994 (073) ELT 0736 (T) He submits that all the statements recorded, can be used as evidence only in case when every individual is cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Prism Pigment Colour Pvt. Ltd reported in 2007 (211) ELT 0427 (T). He also placed reliance on the following judgments: Ganga Rubber Industries 1989 (039) ELT 0650 (T) Ebenezer Rubbers Ltd 1986 (026) ELT 0997 (T) GSICL reported in 2007 (209) ELT 289 (T) Nikwik Electronics Pvt. Ltd 2006 (203) ELT 0276 (T) S.R. Springs Pvt. Ltd 2006 (205) ELT 0639 (T) Kashmit Vanaspati P. Ltd 1989 (039) ELT 0655 (T) Raj Sandeep Co. Gian Singh 1999 (031) RLT 324 (T) Krishna Bottlers P. Ltd 1999 (032) RLT 845 (T) Beco Industries Ltd 2000 (121) ELT 650 (T) Gurpreet Rubber Industries 1996 ( 082) ELT 347 (T) Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd 1978 (002) ELT (J 172) D.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department to verify the records and point out any discrepancy, if any, found therefore, an SCN issued invoking extended period is time barred. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Mul Dentpro Pvt. Ltd reported in 2007 (218) ELT 0435 (T) Rallis India Ltd reported in 2006 (201) ELT 0429 (T) Asia Automotive Ltd reported in 1999 (113) ELT 841 (T) Parmeshwar Enterprises reported in 2007 (214) ELT 384 (T) Nizam Sugar Factory reported in 2006 (197) ELT 0465 (SC) 5. He submits that during investigation, an amount of ₹ 5 Lacs and ₹ 15 Lacs was deposited as per direction of the Hon ble Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Ahmedabad, it was not taken into account while confirming the demand in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed of various persons are very vital evidence and once the same is retracted, the statement can be used only after cross examining the witnesses as provided under Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944. Passing an adjudication order without allowing cross examination is gross violation of principles of natural justice. The principle of natural justice is the foundation in any adjudication, if the principle of natural justice is not followed, the adjudication would become meaningless. Moreover, various other issues raised by the Ld. Counsel were not properly considered by the adjudicating authority, therefore, in our considered view, the matter as a whole needs a re-look by the adjudicating authority. It is also observed that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
