CASE LAWS
2015-TIOL-2717-HC-P&H-CX
CCE Vs GHANSHAM BASSI: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (Dated: September 1, 2015)
Central Excise - Offence case - M/s Moonlight Auto (P) Ltd., manufacturer of auto components was visited by the Central Excise officers on 8.12.2005 - During physical verification, it was found that the firm was suppressing its actual production and clandestinely removing the finished goods - shortage of raw materials (C.R. Sheets/H.R. Sheets and scrap) detected; parallel record of production was detected, revealing that from the raw material found short, excess production of various finished goods was done which were removed from the factory without payment of central excise duty - duty demand with interest and penalty on the firm adjudicated, apart from personal penalty under Rule 26 of the CER 2002, on the Director, who is the respondent herein - The demands were set aside by Commissioner (Appeals), whose order was upheld by the Tribunal, now agitated by Revenue herein.
Held: The Tribunal had only recorded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a detailed order by taking into consideration various precedent decisions of the Tribunal as also the provisions of Section 36B of the Act and also found that there was no evidence of clandestine removal - The charges of clandestine activities and removal of goods thereof are required to be adjudicated on the basis of appreciating factual matrix by giving sufficient and cogent reasons - Tribunal order shows that no legally justified reasons have been recorded for rejecting the appeals of the revenue - The Tribunal being final fact finding authority was required to deal with all aspects of facts and law before recording its conclusions based thereon - Impugned Tribunal order set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. [Para 8, 9]
Matter remanded
2015-TIOL-2718-HC-MAD-CUS
HEALTHWARE PVT LTD Vs CESTAT: MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: October 15, 2015)
Customs - DEPB - The appellant imported two units of Extracorporal Lithotripter - The goods were classified under tariff heading 9018.19; two DEPB Scrips dated 31.8.1999 and 26.4.2000 were produced in accordance with the Customs Notification No.34/97-Cus - Director General of Foreign Trade issued a public notice on 7.4.2000, amending para 7.36B of the procedure to the effect that credit under DEPB may be utilised for payment of customs duty and on any item which is freely importable, except capital goods - Therefore, a demand notice for duty was raised and dropped in adjudication on the ground that the imported items were not capital goods - decision was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the goods are capital goods and that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of one of those two DEPB Scrips issued prior to the public notice - Revenue agitated the dropping of demand under one scrip which was allowed by the Tribunal in an exparte ruling, now agitated herein.
Held: the appellant has indicated the sequence of events atleast from February 2010 upto the date of the decision - where an ex parte decision has been rendered by the Tribunal, the prolongation of a decision on the same is not beneficial to either of the parties - the impugned order does not record that the appellant herein was habitually absented themselves, but recorded at Para 2 that the matter was adjourned on earlier occasions and nobody turned up on behalf of the respondent(assessee) - The chronology of events tabulated show that after 3rd September 2013, the date on which the adjournment was sought for by the appellant, the case was taken on two occasions viz., on 24.12.2013 and 25.9.2014 and the Tribunal rendered the decision - one opportunity can be granted to the appellant, especially, in view of the fact that the benefit granted to the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) was confined only to one of the scrips, that was issued prior to the public notice issued by the DGFT - order of the Tribunal is set aside. and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal - The appellant shall, without fail, appear before the Tribunal on the date indicated by the Tribunal without seeking any adjournment as the appeal is a very old one; and the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. [Para 5, 6, 7]
Matter remanded
2015-TIOL-2719-HC-MAD-CUS
DATA FIELD INDIA LTD Vs DCC: MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: October 14, 2015)
Customs - Re-import of goods exported by 100% EOU under Notification No 158/95 Cus for repair - Good could not be exported back as the same were beyond repair - Demand of duty confirmed - Writ Petition challenging the order on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded.
Held: Records show that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner as provided under the Customs Act and unless and otherwise the petitioner is permitted to produce the documentary evidence so as to consider, there is no point for the authority to pass an order in original. Thus, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice the impugned order is liable to be set aside - Impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded. ( para 8)
Matter remanded
