2021 (7) TMI 1029 - HC - Central Excise

High Court directs fair adjudication of Central Excise Show Cause Notices for clandestine goods removal.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI Versus CESTAT, CHENNAI

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Central Excise to adjudicate Show Cause Notices issued to two companies involved in clandestine removal of ... Interpretation of statute - 'the person chargeable with the duty', in the main part of sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - by such person or his agent in the Proviso - whether only one person can be charged with the duty on a given goods or otherwise? - Clandestine removal - demand of duty from two companies SAS and ASRM, who jointly involved in the manufacturing of the goods - HELD THAT:- The appeal admitted on substantial questions of law. Due to efflux of time, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to adjudicate these appeals and decide the substantial question of law as the department has availed the opportunity granted by the Tribunal in the impugned order and issued Show Cause Notices afresh, which are slightly different from the Show Cause Notices, which have ultimately culminated into the impugned order - Therefore, the best course open would be is to direct the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli, to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee and take a decision in the matter. The appeals are disposed of, by directing the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli to proceed further with adjudicating the Show Cause Notice dated 24-7-2007, after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessees, which includes an opportunity of personal hearing. Issues:Challenge to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the interpretation of 'the person chargeable with the duty' in Section 11A and the issuance of Show Cause Notices to two companies involved in clandestine removal of goods.Analysis:The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's order dated 8-3-2007. The substantial question of law revolved around the interpretation of the words and phrase 'the person chargeable with the duty' in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically in the context of two companies jointly involved in the clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal's interpretation was questioned by the Revenue.The High Court heard the arguments presented by the counsels for both the appellant and respondents. The Tribunal's order had been given effect to, and Show Cause Notices had been issued to both companies by the Department. One of the companies sought certain documents to respond to the Show Cause Notices, while the actions of the other company were not clear.Due to the passage of time and the Department issuing Show Cause Notices afresh, the High Court deemed it unnecessary to adjudicate the appeals and decide the substantial question of law. The Court directed the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli, to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessees for a personal hearing, and to make a decision based on merits and in accordance with the law. The substantial question of law was left open for consideration in the future.In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of by instructing the Commissioner to proceed with adjudicating the Show Cause Notices, affording a fair opportunity to the assessees. The Court did not award any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.