9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod 1995-96 to 1998-99 alleging no proof of export adduced calling for levy of duty and levy of demand of Rs. 41,72,954/- with equal amount of penalty and interest on duty in respect of show-cause notice alleging branded and un-branded footwear and parts thereof relating to the period 1995-96 to 1998-99 were cleared without disclosing the same in statutory record required to be maintained under the law. Penalty was levied under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 1.2 Appeal against the impugned order was filed before this forum on 10th July, 2007 stating that the impugned order was served on the Appellant on 5-4-2007. However, the Miscellaneous Application moved praying for cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant for production of evidence to consider their claim. But they failed to plead their defence with credible evidence. Present application is merely a dilatory tactics adopted by Appellant to abuse the process of law seeking another remand to deprive Revenue from its legitimate dues. When three months period is available to seek remedy of appeal, the Appellant failed to file appeal and by a vague application they have come for condonation of deliberate delay. The application is not only mala fide to deny legitimate dues of Revenue but also to be enriched at the cost of Revenue. Having challenged the speaking de novo order of adjudication, the Appellant should have sought earliest appeal remedy with all credible evidence to satisfy this foru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication. There was no breach of law made by Appellant. But for the opportunity not provided by the Department to adduce evidence and also for the documents available in their record not verified by them, this appeal deserves consideration. He further submitted that the Appellant manufactured the goods for the purpose of domestic sale as well as export for which documents were filed in support of their claim. The Authority without considering the same, simply held otherwise against the Appellant. Therefore, they deserve consideration by authorities below in third round of hearing. 3.1 Granting wide opportunity of hearing to both sides for a long time, we noticed that Show-cause notice was issued on 22-3-2000 and the order-in-original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has made the Miscellaneous Application very casually without specifying the date on which Appeal was filed, the number of days of delay and the reasoning of such delay in order to show its vigilant attitude to seek appeal remedy. It was not even stated whether appeal was ready for filing on. the last date of limitation. also the application not state the day on which the plea of water logging affected the Appellant ? The Application did not disclose any seriousness of Appellant to seek appeal remedy even after the next date of expiry of limitation except a bald plea of unprecedented water logging in and around city. How such an event prevented the Appellant remained unexplained at the time of hearing also that was in dark in the Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proof of export the levy submitted that those have already been submitted long back to Range Superintendent. 3.5 Veracity of submission of the Appellant was examined by the ld. Adjudicating Authority in Para 18.2 of the impugned order. Referring to Para 15 of the order, the ld. Authorities came to the conclusion that the Appellant failed to adduce evidence in respect of export except 44 (forty four) cases. Also, they failed to produce any evidence relating to seizure of documents as they claimed. They failed to lead evidence in respect of domestic clearance whether found place in statutory records. Therefore, entire plea of the Appellant was discarded. Ld. Adjudicating Authority also observed that if the documents were seized in the pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls pertaining to the period of SCN is enclosed for ready reference'. However, this is contradicted in the same letter as under: for your inspection we will produce all records and documents in original at the time of personal hearing since all the above records are voluminous and Xerox copies carmot be enclosed.' Further, the letter ends with handwritten lines 'Enclo :- Some representative shipping Bills'. These facts coupled with the assessee's claim before Hon'ble CESTAT that they are in possession of all the export documents clearly proves that original documents were never submitted in past, as claimed by them vide their letter dated 15-3-2007 & reiterated at the time of personal hearing. I would also like to put on record a fact whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
