TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f adjudication proceedings. The verification should have been done by some other officer(s) who is not associated with the adjudication process so as to impart an element of neutrality and impartiality. Be that as it may, we further observe that a copy of the verification report was not furnished to the investigating agency for their comments/rebuttal. As per the settled principles of adjudication as also the guidelines prescribed in the adjudication manual, when any new fact comes up for consideration, the party likely to be adversely affected by the same should be given an opportunity to rebut the new findings/facts. Unfortunately, this has not been done in the present case. Thus there is a clear violation of the principle of natural just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per the transfer advice Ceat, Bhandup cleared 196,56,601.54 kgs. of DNTF valued at ₹ 312.51 crore during April, 1995 to December, 1999. However, investigation conducted revealed that as per the Annexure IV register maintained at the Nasik unit under Rule 57F(4) procedure, the Nasik unit accounted for only 114,49,365.94 kgs. and therefore, apparently 82,07,235.60 kgs. of DNTF, which were not received at Nasik unit, were removed without payment of duty by the Bhandup unit. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 31-3-2000 was issued to the Bhandup unit proposing to recover the duty short paid of ₹ 29,38,81,063/- along with interest thereon and proposing penal action. The said notice was adjudicated vide order No. 20/2002, dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. While in the Annexure IV register, only quantity of Cenvatable inputs were recorded, in the transfer advice, other materials some of which are non-excisable were also recorded. Since the basis for the preparation of these two records are different, it will not be appropriate to compare the figures recorded therein. 3. In their appeal memorandum, Revenue has urged the following grounds. The verification report of the committee was not furnished to the investigating agency for their comments/rebuttal, nor any of the investigating agency s officers were co-opted at the time of verification, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The said committee has verified the details in respect of quantity accounted only in the Annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the respondent had submitted all the evidences with regard to receipt of the goods at their Nasik unit both at the time of initial adjudication and also when the de novo adjudication took place. The investigation agency had the opportunity to controvert these evidences at the time of adjudication which they have not done. Having failed to avail of the opportunity, they cannot now seek one more opportunity which only shows their mala fide. The quantity of dispatch recorded in the transfer advices cannot be compared with the figures recorded in the Annexure IV register. While the former is an internal document of the assessee, the latter is the statutory one. Further, in the Annexure IV register, only details of Cenvatable inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted for verification of the transactions consisted of four members; however, the report dated 21-10-2003 submitted by the committee is signed only by one person, which is rather unusual. Further we observe that the said report is signed by the Superintendent (Adjudication) whose role is to assist the adjudicating authority in the conduct of adjudication proceedings. The verification should have been done by some other officer(s) who is not associated with the adjudication process so as to impart an element of neutrality and impartiality. Be that as it may, we further observe that a copy of the verification report was not furnished to the investigating agency for their comments/rebuttal. As per the settled principles of adjudication as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered view that, in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for giving an opportunity to the investigating agency to examine and counter the verification report of the committee set up by the adjudicating authority. A copy of the verification report along with all the documents verified shall be given both to the investigating agency and the respondent assessee, who shall then make their respective submissions. These shall be considered and a de novo order passed in accordance with law. Since the matter pertains to the period 1995-99, the adjudicating authority is hereby directed to complete the de novo adjudication proceedings within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
