9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bent on the Commissioner to pass an order on each and every proposal made in the show cause notice and he cannot be silent in the operating portion of the order on any of the proposal made in the show cause notice. There is a clear error in the order. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied provision of laws before passing of the order. Since no order was passed on the above two proposal, the whole matter needs to be remanded for passing a fresh order. The learned Adjudicating Authority granting fair opportunity of hearing shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in respect of the concerned charges to hold whether sustainable or not. Such exercise shall meet the scrutiny of law. Entire matter remanded to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for passing a de novo order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order - appeal disposed off by way of remand. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Shri J C Patel Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocates for the Appellant- Assessee Shri Anoop Kumar Mudvel, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent -Revenue O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. As the goods had been provisionally released he imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,26,24,560/- . He imposed the penalty of Rs. 62,41,582/- on assessee and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 on Shri Malav G. Patel under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved, the assessee and revenue are before this Tribunal. 2. Shri J.C. Patel learned counsel with Shri Rahul Gajera Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submits that mere non entry of the final products and waste and scrap in Daily Stock register cannot make the goods liable to confiscation under Rule 25, when admittedly the goods are lying within the factory and there is neither any attempt of removal without payment of duty nor any evidence or statement that the non-entry in register was with a view to remove the same clandestinely without payment of duty. 2.1 He also submits that Rule 25 is subject to Section 11AC and therefore Rule 25 to apply, the ingredients of Section 11AC need to be established. In the present case the goods were within the factory, there was no attempt of removal without payment duty nor any evidence to establish that the non-entry of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he quantum of redemption fine. The margin of profit has to be considered for determining the quantum of redemption fine 3. On other hand, Shri A.K. Mudvel Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of impugned orders in respect of parties appeals and grounds of appeal in the Revenue appeal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4.1 As regard the assessee s appeal, we find that the main allegation is that the appellant have not accounted for the excisable goods in the records. As per grounds of appeal the appellant s submissions have not been considered by the Adjudicating authority, in this regard we reproduced the relevant grounds raised in the appeal:- 13. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority is in utter violation to the principles of natural justice, as the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the submissions made by the appellant. It was obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to have dealt with all the submissions made by the appellant and in case he did not agree to the same, the same should have been negated by reasoning. The impugned order is thus violative of principles of natural justice and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and heavy metal and 152.120 MT. of MS Waste Scrap totally valued at Rs. 5,04,98,240/- involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 62,42,582/- should not be confiscated under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule, 2002; (ii) the seized goods which had been provisionally ordered for release on execution of B-11 bond alongwith the security as per order dtd. 23.01.2014 of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad II, as intimated vide F.No. V.94/15-01/OA/Prov-Release-Phenix/2014, and the said goods which was required to be produced, failing which, why the provisions of B-11 Bond should not be enforced and the security deposit to be furnished by them should not be appropriated; (iii) Central Excise Duty of Rs. 62,42,582/- involved in the said seized goods should not be demanded under sub-section (1A) of the Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iv) Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be imposed upon them; (v) Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002 should not be imposed upon them (vi) the said seized goods should not be disposed off as per the provisions of Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, or a fine is lieu of confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
