2018 (7) TMI 1 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD Resolves Dispute on Duty Demands & Penalties, Issues Directions for Re-Adjudication

M/s R.K. Agrawal (Finance Manager) (In Appeal No. E/1580/2007) & The Indian Wood Products Co. Ltd. (In Appeal No. E/1581/2007) Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Lucknow

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD addressed a difference of opinion between its members regarding duty demands and penalties in a case. The Tribunal ... Rectification of Mistake - the appellant points out that from the final order, it is evident that in the batch of appeals, there is difference of opinion - Held that:- It appears that only Member (Judicial), who first passed order have observed that inasmuch as the penalties on various dealers/drivers/transporters, authorize representative, etc., stand imposed by the Commissioner, are on the basis of evasion of duty by HSG (M/s Harsingar Pvt. Ltd.) and as the Tribunal has already upheld the confirmation of demand against HSG only in respect of Supari received by them from Mahesh & Co. and 306 bags, etc. The matter as regards penalty of various persons is remanded to the Commissioner for judging afresh in the light of the findings of the Tribunal - the learned Commissioner is required to re-adjudge the penalties. The learned Commissioner is directed to dispose of the remanded matter, expeditiously. Issues:Rectification of mistake in final order, difference of opinion between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical), remand for re-quantification of duty demand, re-deciding penalties, setting aside demands, confirmation of penalties, imposition of penalties, remittance of penalty assessment, confirmation of duty demands, setting aside penalties, fresh adjudication of penalties, disposal of remanded matters, opportunity for hearing on penalties.Analysis:The judgment involves the consideration of miscellaneous applications for rectification of a mistake in the final order by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out a difference of opinion between the Member (Judicial) and the Member (Technical) regarding the appeals in question. The Member (Judicial) confirmed the demand in respect of certain items and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for re-quantification of the duty demand and re-decision on penalties. On the other hand, the Member (Technical) did not mention anything regarding the appeal of the applicants, leading to a difference of opinion on various issues outlined in the judgment.The third Member of the Tribunal then decided on the difference of opinion, setting aside certain demands and penalties while confirming others. The demand amounts and penalties were carefully analyzed and decided upon, with specific directions given for the computation and imposition of penalties on the concerned parties. The Division Bench subsequently passed an operative order confirming certain duty demands against M/s Harsingar Gutkha Pvt. Ltd. and setting aside others. The judgment also addressed the imposition of penalties on individuals and the remittance of penalty assessment to the Adjudicating Authority for further adjudication.The Tribunal clarified that the Commissioner is required to re-adjudge the penalties, including those of the appellants, in accordance with the final order dated 27/08/2014. The Commissioner was directed to dispose of the remanded matters promptly, and the appellants were granted the liberty to seek an opportunity for a hearing on the issue of penalties. The judgment provided a comprehensive resolution to the differences of opinion and outlined a clear path forward for the re-assessment and adjudication of penalties in the case at hand.