TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns duty demands, penalties, confiscation orders, emphasizing natural justice. Remand for fresh adjudication.</h1> <h3>Brundaban Sahu Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I</h3> Brundaban Sahu Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I - TMI Issues Involved:1. Demand of central excise duty and imposition of penalties.2. Confiscation of goods and cash.3. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses.4. Alleged clandestine operation and clearance of goods without payment of duty.Detailed Analysis:1. Demand of Central Excise Duty and Imposition of Penalties:The Commissioner confirmed a central excise duty demand of Rs. 17.25 crores against a sole proprietorship firm under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AB. The firm had deposited Rs. 62.40 lakhs during the investigation, which was appropriated towards the duty demand. Penalties equivalent to the duty amount were imposed under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Calculation of Duty) Rules, 2008. Additionally, penalties of Rs. 20 lakhs each were imposed on two other appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. Confiscation of Goods and Cash:The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of various pouches of Pan Masala under Rule 17 of the Pan Masala Rules, allowing redemption upon a fine payment. Some goods were absolutely confiscated under Rule 25, and cash amounting to Rs. 14.47 lakhs was confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the grounds that it represented the sale proceeds of clandestinely manufactured goods.3. Denial of Cross-Examination of Witnesses:The appellants contended that the Commissioner violated principles of natural justice by not allowing them to cross-examine 19 witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the show cause notices. The Tribunal noted that if the Revenue relies on witness statements, it must make those witnesses available for cross-examination if requested. The failure to do so constitutes a violation of natural justice, as established in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE and Kay Pan Sugandh Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Cus. & S.T., Rourkela.4. Alleged Clandestine Operation and Clearance of Goods Without Payment of Duty:The case against the firm involved allegations of operating undeclared packing machines and clearing goods without paying duty. The show cause notices alleged that the firm had five undeclared packing machines and was found operating six machines during a search. The duty demand of Rs. 17.25 crores included additional duties and cesses. The show cause notices also proposed penalties under various rules and sections for the unauthorized operation of packing machines and the unaccounted packing materials.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The appellants were to be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the 19 witnesses and provide further submissions. The Tribunal refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, focusing instead on the due process of law. All appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
