Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (6) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the appellant. The appellant have never made any request of cross-objection of examination in chief of any of the witnesses - the fact is also noted that no retraction of statement made by him has been found in the appeal papers - the appellant have consciously avoided participating in the adjudication process and now they want that the matter to be decided only on the technical ground that cross-examination was not allowed or permitted under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. C. L. MAHAR Shri. Hasit Dave , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajesh R Kurup , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER C. L. MAHAR T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bmitted that a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs has been imposed on the appellant by the adjudicating authority without specifying any role of him in evasion of Central Excise Duty. It has also been contended that the penalty has been imposed based on self inculpatory statements recorded from him on 16 February, 2000 by the Investigating Officers. It has been the contention of the Learned Advocate that as per the provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the adjudicating authority should have given him an opportunity to cross-examine, the persons whose statements has been made basis for imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule, 209A of the Central Excise Rule, 1994. 3. Learned Advocate has relied upon this Tribunal s decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dings, first hearing in the matter was scheduled for 20.10.2016. The hearing notices dated 05.10.2016 sent through speed post were delivered to the Noticees on 10.10.2016 as demonstrated through the records of the postal authorities. The Noticees vide letter dated 18.10.2013 submitted as under:- ...all our records for the relevant period have been seized by the wings of the Central Excise Department and/or DRI/DGCEI in the past on various occasions. The records are still retained by them till date. Hence we have reminded them to return the documents or to furnish readable copies of the documents seized by and lying with them kindly oblige us by granting an adjournment and refixing the hearing after we are supplied with the required document .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is the Central Excise duty that is applicable in terms of Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also as per the Apex Court decision in the case of SIV Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2000 (117) ELT 218 (SC) and Board Circular No.618/9/2000-CE dated 13.02.2000 and not the proviso to section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty payable in terms of Section 3(1) works out to Rs.1,67,468/- applying the rate of 16% as per the Notification No.17/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000. He further submits that the goods on which the demand of Rs.36 Lakhs has been confirmed were manufactured out of Indigenous raw materials procured from 100% EOU and, therefore, Notification No.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 is applicable. When the duty is worked out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder Section 11AB as per the Notifications issued from time to time with effect from 15.5.2000. (iv) The impugned order is liable to set aside for redetermining the penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 209A. 3. Since the Commissioner Appeals has not considered the above points, we consider it reasonable that the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication with the direction that he should offer reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and thereafter pass a fresh speaking order in the matter. The appeal is, accordingly, remanded. 5.2 It can be seen from the above order of this Tribunal that the advocate that time has never raised any objection for the non supply of the documents to the appellant. We are of the opinion that all the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates