Tribunal rules in favor of Appellant, citing undue delays, transshipment, and no factory suppression.

The Tribunal found in favor of the Appellant on all issues, concluding that the proceedings were unduly delayed, the imported material was transshipped and utilized for manufacturing export goods, and there was no suppression of the second factory's existence. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inordinate delay in completion of proceedings and passing of the impugned order.
2. Actual transshipment of the imported material to the Appellant's factory in Jaipur.
3. Receipt and utilization of the imported material for manufacturing export goods versus diversion of the imported goods.
4. Disclosure of the second factory to the D.R.I. and the timing of the A.P.E.C. registration certificate issuance.
5. Validity of the impugned order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue I: Inordinate Delay in Completion of Proceedings
The proceedings took 14 years from the issuance of the show-cause notice on 09th November 2004 to the passing of the impugned order on 29th June 2018. The Appellant had requested expeditious disposal, and there was no explanation from the Department for the delay. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that such inordinate delay violated natural justice and vitiated the proceedings.

Issue II: Transshipment of Imported Material to Jaipur
The Tribunal found that the letter from the Additional Commissioner, C.T.D., Jaipur dated 09th March 2004, did not specify truck numbers, making it insufficient to prove no transshipment. Conversely, a certificate dated 29th January 2005 verified that the trucks carrying the imported material had crossed the Shahjahanpur check post. Documentary evidence, including G.R. Nos. 3533 and 3543 and statements from transporters, supported the Appellant's claim of transshipment to Jaipur. The Department's claim of forged documents was unsubstantiated.

Issue III: Utilization of Imported Material for Manufacturing Export Goods
The Tribunal found the utilization chart submitted by the Appellant to be credible. The chart showed consumption and stock of the imported material, and the Appellant's explanation of wastage and damage during manufacturing was plausible. The Department failed to provide evidence of local sales or diversion of goods. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were received and utilized by the Appellant for manufacturing export goods.

Issue IV: Disclosure of the Second Factory and A.P.E.C. Certificate Timing
The Tribunal found no suppression of the second factory's existence. The factory address was included in the A.P.E.C. certificate dated 25th August 1999, which was renewed and issued afresh on 17th March 2004. The Panchanama dated 25th June 2003 indicated that the D.R.I. was aware of the factory. The Tribunal rejected the claim that the A.P.E.C. certificate was contrived.

Issue V: Validity of the Impugned Order
Given the findings on the previous issues, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unjustified. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the impugned order was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found in favor of the Appellant on all issues, concluding that the proceedings were unduly delayed, the imported material was transshipped and utilized for manufacturing export goods, and there was no suppression of the second factory's existence. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---