9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hundred and Eight only) followed by interest and equal amount of penalty. The proceeding was initiated against the Appellant under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Learned Commissioner (Appeal) held that the Appellant was lialble to pay the duty as demanded by the order of adjudication under Rule 96ZP(3). However, he did not make any ruling on the penalty aspect as well as interest. 1.2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeal) while deciding the mater was of the opinion that there was no scope for abatement of duty due to shortfall in production and the duty amount being pre-determind does not change in the event of closure of the factory or for production below the monthly av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department. Much later the date of intimation as above, the Department issued three show cause notices to the assessee for the relevant period raising the demands as under stating that they have not discharged the duty liability for the respective periods and have evaded.: S.C.N.Date Period Amount 08-10-99 01-04-99 to 30-09-99 28, 254 13-03-2000 01-10-99 to 29-02-2000 23, 545 27-02-2000 01-03-2000 to 31-03-2000 4, 709 56, 508 1.4 To the first show cause notice dated 8-10-1999 a reply was submitted by the Appellant to the Learned Assistant Commissioner on 4-1-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an order of adjudication raising the demand aforesaid. 2. The Learned Consultant appearing for the Appellant submitted that the entire fact was brought to the notice of the Department on 15-10-1998 and it was well within the knowledge of the Department that there was no suppression of fact nor any deliberate concealment of the material facts, but after nearly one year of intimation to the Department, the first show cause notice dated 8-10-1999 was issued by the Department. Therefore the proceeding was barred by limitation and section11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also his prayer that in view of closure of the factory and for the very valid reason of depression i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Commissioner did not deal with the contentions of the Appellant at all in the order impugned. Natural justice demands that decision should be based on evidence of probative value. On proper consideration of submissions decision flows. Neither the Appellate Authority below could dispose the matter by a speaking and reasoned order nor also could examine various facts governing the issue in question. It is noticeable that when the Appellant intimated on15-10-1998 to the Department about indefinite closure followed by request on 21-11-2001 to the Learned Commissioner to hear their grievances, the Appellant was totally prevented from the due process of justice. Of course by that time the order of adjudication was passed on 16-11-2001. If t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
