9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexureF to the petition] dated 4th February 2013, whereby, it confirmed various duty demands alongwith penalties and interest. Against such an order, the petitioners would be entitled to approach the Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ["Tribunal" for short], however, we have chosen to entertain this petition essentially on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. While issuing notice, in the instant case, we had particularly indicated the breach of such principles in the following manner : "Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record an affidavit dated 5.3.2013 sworn by advocate Shri Nirav P Shah who had appeared before the learned Commissioner during the course of adjudication proceedings. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party. It is the discretion of the concerned adjudicating authority to either allow or disallow such a request. Upon thus hearing both the sides, it could be noted that an intelligence was gathered by the officer of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Nashik Regional Unit that the present petitioners and others are involved in the manufacture of excisable goods "Drill Rods" but were not paying the Central excise duties leviable on the said product; as required under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and therefore, investigations were initiated. During the process, statements of various witnesses were recorded which eventually culminated into issuance of show cause notices dated 7th October 2011 and 1st November ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the process of manufacturing undertaken by the manufacturer of the subject goods and applicability of Tribunal judgment in the case of M/s. Vulcan Laval Limited, reported at 1985 (22) ELT 123 to the subject goods for nonpayment of Central Excise duty on clearance affected by the assessee. Thus, I find that the assessee has been given enough opportunity by the DGCEI, Nasik in this regards. I find that the other persons to whom the Company has supplied their finished goods and whose statements have been recorded by the DGCEI Officer to know mainly contains the nature and end use of the product supplied by the Company, to know about their procurement procedure and procedure for maintenance of inventory, accounting system, etc. I hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2358 of 2013. We have chosen to interfere in that petition also, on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, while passing the final order of adjudication, by holding thus " Conscious that against such order, statutory appeal before the Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is available, we had, by recording brief reasons in our Order dated 28th February 2013, issued notice to the respondents. We are prompted to entertain writ petition directly on the ground that the petitioners had prima facie made out a case of breach of principles of natural justice at the hands of the adjudicating authority. Short grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request for cross examination in paragraph 14.1 of the order and rejected such a request. He thereupon proceeded to examine the issues at length and ultimately passed the final order; as noted above, confirming various duty demands with interest and penalties. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to interfere on the short ground of serious breach of principles of natural justice in the process of passing final order of adjudication. We say so because the adjudicating authority, though categorically informed by the representative of the petitioners that the petitioners are serious about exercise of their right to cross examination and further that any meaningful participation in the adjudicating proceedings can take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case, deal with such an application only in the final order itself. Sum total of this discussion is that we are inclined to setaside the impugned order and request the adjudicating authority to pass a separate order on the petitioners' application/request letter for granting cross examination of the named witnesses. We are conscious that the Commissioner has already decided such an issue, however, since we are quashing the order, this part of the order would also not survive and hence, the requirement of a fresh order. We are informed that the same officer continues to hold the office of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, SuratII. It would therefore, be not necessary to separately hear the petition once again before passi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
