TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the senior officers of the appellant company, a show cause notice was issued alleging, inter alia, shortages. The appellants had also admitted to certain procedural lapses and had made representation to that effect. They also debited an amount of Rs. 3,54,052/- as per entry in RG Part II. The Additional Commissioner by order dated 23-9-1997 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 3,54,052/- and Rs. 718/- and imposed mandatory penalties of Rs. 3,54,052/- and Rs. 718/- under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. He also imposed a further penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Additional Commissioner s orders. 2. The appellants had contended before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the order of the Additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 650 (T) = 1999 (35) RLT 9 (CEGAT) (4) Mukha Mal Gokal Chand v. C.C.E., New Delhi - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 163 (T) (5) Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 403 (Mad.) 4. Defending the impugned order, ld. JDR submitted that the appellants themselves have not disputed the fact that they had made a written request for waiver of the issue of show cause notice. They had also debited the duty amount voluntarily which went to show that they were fully convinced of the duty liability and about the shortages. If the present submissions of the appellants are accepted, then it would lead to a situation where after first requesting for waiver of show cause notice, an assessee can raise the plea of non-issue of Show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or their copies were ever provided to the importers before passing this order, therefore we find that the Principles of Natural Justice have been clearly violated in this case. 6. In Madhu Foods Products v. C.C.E. (supra), it was held that where no evidence had been brought on record to prove that the goods were removed from the factory premises without payment of duty, the estimated production can be considered to be only estimate which was subjected to a number of limitations. It was therefore, held that in the absence of any documentary evidence that the goods estimated to be produced and not brought on record were removed without payment of duty, demand of duty on such removed goods cannot be confirmed. In the absence of such documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
