TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice and cannot be sustained. Adjudicating authority is obligated under law to consider the submissions made in response to the show cause notice and any order passed without consideration of the submissions is in violation of the principles of natural justice and needs to be set aside. Matter is remanded back to the original authority for passing a speaking order taking into consideration the submissions made in reply to the show cause notice, including the request for cross-examination of Shri Kamlesh S. Patil - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 1024 of 2012, 1028 of 2012, 1029 of 2012, 1039 of 2012 - A/85342-85345/2023 - Dated:- 20-2-2023 - HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Rules, 2002. vi) I impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) on Shri Surya Prakash Pandey, under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 Appellant No.1 is a 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of copper phthallo cynine blue crude. Acting on intelligence, investigations were undertaken against appellant No.1 and it was alleged that the appellant was resorting to suppression of production and clandestine clearances of excisable goods manufactured by it. During the course of investigation, statements of various persons including one employee, Shri Kamlesh S. Patil, was recorded. 2.2 After completion of investigation, show cause notice dated 11.01.2010 was issued to the appellants as follows:- 23. Now there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules, 2002 for actively aiding and abetting the offence of evasion of duty by SIL-EOU. 25. Further Shri Dinesh Sharma and Shri Surya Prakash Pandey are hereby called upon to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur, Vasant Plaza, Bagal Chowk, Kolhapur within 30 days of receipt of this notice as to why penalty should not be imposed on each of them separately under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for actively aiding and abetting the offence of evasion of duty by SIL-EOU 26. SIL-EOU, SIL-DTA, Shri Dinesh Sharma and Shri Suryaprakash Pandey are hereby directed to produce at the time of showing cause all the evidences upon which they intend to rely in support of their defense. They are further directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il whose statement has been alive in proceeding against them. No reason has been recorded for denying the cross-examination of the said person. The order has been passed without consideration of any submissions made, hence cannot be said to be a speaking order. Accordingly the matter needs to be readjudicated taking into account all the submissions made by the appellant. 3.3 Learned AR reiterates. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Commissioner has in his order running into 33 pages recorded the show cause notice in 26 pages. Thereafter in para 60 and 61 he has given the details of the proceedings before him. Para 60 and 61 are reproduced below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as fixed on 27.02.2012, Shri H. P. Bohara and Shri. Abhijeet A. Barde, Advocate, appeared before the adjudicating authority, on behalf of the assessee. He reiterated the contents of the written reply and requested to drop the SCN and walve penalties. He also stated that some of the goods manufactured during the trial batches are still lying in their factory, however, duty on such goods has been demanded in the said notice. 4.3 Thereafter the findings on the submissions made by the appellant are recorded in para 23 as follows:- 23. SIL-EOU in their reply quoted various decisions in respect of requirement of corrabarative evidence to sustain the charges framed in the SCN. In view of the above discussion I find that considering all f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
