9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Haldia. 2. The other four Stay Applications i.e. SP Nos.832,833,835 & 836/12 in Ex.Appeal Nos.495,496,497,498/12 are filed seeking waiver of pre deposit of duty and penalties as below: Sl.Nos. SP/Appeal Nos. Duty (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1. SP-832/12 (Ex.Appl./495/12) 1,00,84,217/- 25,00,000/- U/Sec.25 (1) of Central Excise Rules,2002 2. SP-833/12(Ex.Appl./496/12) 6,30,08,725/- 10,000/- U/Sec.117 of the Customs Act, 1962 3. SP-835/12 (Ex.Appl./497/12) 1,65,45,712/- 50,00,000/- U/Sec.25 (1) of Central Excise Rules,2002 4. SP-836/12 (Ex,Appl./498/12) 8,11,54,600/- 2,00,00,000/- U/Sec.25 (1) of Central Excise Rules,2002 3. Since the issues involved in all these Stay Applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 2012, however, neither any notice was issued nor a personal hearing was accorded to them before rejection of the remission application. He submits that by not issuing any notice or extending personal hearing before deciding their remission application, principle of natural justice has been violated. It has also resulted grave injustice to them, inasmuch as even though they have enclosed necessary evidences in support of their remission application, but the decision was arrived at by the ld.Commissioner, without analyzing those evidences in its proper perspective. Citing an example, the ld. Advocate argued that in their Daily Stock Account (DSA), the stock of finished goods as on 21st November, 2009, has been indicated, and since 22nd Nov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so resulted in their factory premise. He also submits that before rejection of the remission application, the ld.Commssioner has not allowed an opportunity of personal hearing to them, but on the basis of personal hearing allowed on 02.02.2012, the remission application has been rejected. He submits that in deciding the remission application, the ld.Commissioner has failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice. Also, from the receipt of the orders of confirmation of the demand notices and rejection of remission application, it is clear that the proceeding has not been carried out in a fair and just manner. 6. The Ld. Adv. vehemently argued that even though all the evidences were enclosed with the remission application, the ld.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the remission application. He submits that while claiming remission of duty involved, the Applicants failed to submit vital evidences/documents like copy of Insurance Policy, Survey Report, the quantum of insurance claim filed, the amount sanctioned; etc. In absence of all these evidences/documents, it were not possible on the part of the adjudicating authority to arrive at any conclusion whether the duty involved on the destroyed goods, have been compensated by the Insurance Company or otherwise. He submits that even till date, the Applicants had failed to produce these documents, so as to ascertain the correctness of the claim for remission of duty filed by them. He has further submitted that since the Applicants had deliberately not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants. Needless to mention, it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no decision/order adversely affecting a person, be passed/issued without allowing a reasonable opportunity to the person affected to explain his position vis-a-vis the action proposed to be taken against him. In the present case, we find that no reasonable opportunity has been extended to the Appellants before their application for remission of duty, on the goods available in the factory premises and destroyed by the devastating fire on 22.11.2009, had been rejected. The argument of the department is that no separate hearing is required to be allowed as the Appellants were heard on 02.02.2012 in respect of demand notices, involving similar facts, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
