Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 22 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine clearance of paper and paper board Show cause notice issued for confiscation of the seized goods Principles of natural justice - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Order of the Adjudicating Authority to the extent that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the release of the absolutely confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine, confirmed the demand and reduced the penalty - To this extent, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and two separate Orders passed by him, are contradictory to each other - the Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing the Departmental Appeal had not issued any show cause notice to the assessee and they were also not heard by him and therefore, the Orders-in-Appeal were passed without observing the principles of natural justice thus, the Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are bad in law the matter remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case afresh - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
Appeals against Order-in-Appeal, Confirmation of duty, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penalty, Contradictory findings by Commissioner (Appeals), Violation of principles of natural justice. Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Duty: The appellant contested the confirmation of duty related to clandestine clearance of paper and paper board. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand and imposed a penalty, which was modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) in two separate Orders-in-Appeal. The Commissioner allowed the release of confiscated goods on payment of a redemption fine, confirmed the demand, and reduced the penalty. However, the findings of the Commissioner in both orders were contradictory, leading to a lack of consistency in decision-making. 2. Confiscation of Goods: The Assistant Commissioner had confiscated the seized goods and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified this order in one appeal but upheld it in another, resulting in conflicting decisions. The appellant argued that the seizure of goods was unjustified as the finished goods were within the factory premises. The mismatch between documents regarding clandestine clearance was explained by the appellant, highlighting discrepancies in recording loading and removal of goods. 3. Imposition of Penalty: The penalty imposed on the appellant was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) in one order but upheld in another, adding to the inconsistency in the decisions. The appellant raised concerns about the lack of a show cause notice and failure to hear them before modifying the original order, emphasizing a violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not followed the principles of natural justice as the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to be heard before the orders were passed. Consequently, the orders were deemed unlawful and set aside. The matters were remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of considering the pleas of both parties and ensuring a fair hearing. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, highlighting the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring consistency in decision-making to uphold the integrity of the legal process.
|