9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med demand of Rs. 80,46,816/- under section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [Act] but dropped demand of Rs. 32,38,51,321/-. He also ordered payment of interest on the confirmed demand under section 11AB of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 80,46,816/- under section 11AC of the Act on M/s. Sharma Steel Rolling Mills [Appellant] and penalty of Rs. 80,46,816/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [Rules] on Shri Shravan Kumar [Shrawan]. 2. There is no appeal from the Revenue on the portion of the demand dropped by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Submissions of the Appellant 3. Shri Jatin Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions: (i) M/s Sharma Rolling Mills is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich could lead one to believe that the appellant had manufactured the goods clandestinely. (viii) The entire case is based on the records and evidence of third-party, and it is a well-settled principle that the demand cannot be raised only on the basis of third-party evidence. (ix) No cross examination of the person whose statements were recorded was allowed, and therefore they could not have been used as evidence at all. (x) In the case of Siva Prasad Mills Private Ltd [2015(329)ELT 250], wherein an identical case was booked based on the same investigation and searches of Nirmal, this tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the department, which was upheld by the High Court. (xi) The allegation of clandestine removal cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Murari Lal Sharma, General Manager, SSSRM and Shri BB Malik, Director, Nirmal in respect of other cases of other parties of identical nature. Shri Malik and Shri Murari Lal Sharma had not responded while Shri Ghasi Lal Sharma had sent an affidavit to the effect that he had suffered from paralysis and hence was bed ridden. Shri Ghasi Lal Sharma had also filed an affidavit on 1.12.2008 retracting his statement dated 10.9.2005 but it was belated and hence cannot be accepted. (vi) Under the circumstances, the Commissioner passed the impugned order which was fair and proper and calls for no interference. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. 6. The SCN was issued on 3.12.2009 and the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4). From 14.05.2016 11A(11) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under sub-section (10) - (a) within six months from the date of notice where itis possible to do so, in respect of cases fallingunder sub-section (1); (b) within two years from the date of notice, where itis possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4)." 8. While the limitation was introduced from 2011, even if there is no limitation under the Act, the order has to be passed by the officer within a reasonable time. After the introduction of the statutory limitation, the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority to complete the adjudicating process within the statutory time limit cannot be condoned to the detriment of the assessee or detrimental to the interest of the exchequer; (v) There is a definite purpose and intention of the legislature to prescribe such time limit. The legislature has clearly intended to avoid uncertainly, which otherwise can emerge; and (vi) Even if no time limit is prescribed for adjudication of a show cause notice, then too the adjudication has to be done within a reasonable period. However, what would be a reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the Statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors." ******* 42. The aforesaid discussion would lead to the inevitable conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on with the personal hearing, the appellant made some additional submissions dated 23.1.2019. The impugned order was passed on 22.2.2019 after the personal hearing. From these dates, it is evident that the appellants had been prompt and vigilant in replying to the SCN and no reason whatsoever is given in the impugned order for not adjudicating the matter immediately and to have waited for over nine years just to fix the personal hearing. 10. We are aware that the SCN was issued under section 11A in 2009 before the time limit for deciding the SCNs was introduced in 2011. Even if no limitation is prescribed under the law, then too the adjudicating has to be done within a reasonable period. 11. A question which may also arise is wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
