Clandestine removal - Non-supply of relied upon documents - Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit order- justification of

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1565

Case: M/s. Santowin Polyester Ltd, Shri Mahesh Parasrampuria, Shri Ram Naresh Deora Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi

Citation: 2012-TIOL-229-CESTAT-AHM

Issue:- Clandestine removal - Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit order – whether justified when assessee claiming non-supply of relied upon documents – matter remanded.

Brief Facts:- Duty demand for clandestine removal was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority along with interest on the appellant-assessee. Penalties were also imposed on all the three appellants.

In appeal, the First Appellate Authority upheld the impugned order on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the direction of pre-deposit of the amount ordered by him.

Hence, appellant are in appeal before the Tribunal. Stay petitions were filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded with interest and amount of penalties imposed.

The Tribunal has taken up the main appeal.

Appellant’s Contention:- Appellant contended that the duty demands were confirmed without furnishing documents relied upon for issue of demand notice by the lower Authorities. Therefore, they were not able to defend the matter before the lower Authorities and the Adjudicating Authority has passed an ex-parte order. The Commissioner (Appeal) had recorded the fact of non-supply of some documents but even them directed them to pre-deposit the duty amount.

It is submitted that if they are given the copies of the documents as, they will be able to file proper reply and participate in the adjudication proceedings before the adjudicating authority.

Respondent’s Contention:- Revenue contended that the appellants were directed and informed that the documents were available for inspection and they should have taken inspection. The appellant is not serious in prosecuting the matter before the adjudicating authority and prays that some terms may be put in them for hearing and disposing the matters by the adjudicating authority, if the branch feels that the matter should be remanded back to the adjudicating authority.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The appellant had informed to adjudicating authority about non-receipt of the documents as vide letter dated 14.10.09. The adjudicating authority should have given the copies of the relied upon documents which the assessee has indicated as being not received by them.

The Tribunal held that the documents not supplied might be required by them for prosecuting the matter before the Lower Authorities.

Direction given to Adjudicating Authority to provide the copies of these documents to the appellant. Specified time to be given to appellant to prepare reply and then hearing be held. Matter remanded. Impugned orders set aside.

Decision:- Appeals allowed accordingly.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1565

Post a Comment

Query