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>Appellate Tribunal overturns duty demand and penalty, emphasizing fair hearing and evidence reconsideration.</h1> <h3>DURRUNG STEELS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT</h3> DURRUNG STEELS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 346 (Tribunal) Issues:Appeal against duty demand and personal penalty for contravention of Central Excise Rules, suppression of production and removal of goods, denial of loading goods on trucks, non-receipt of consignments by alleged consignees, plea of non-receipt of consignments, lacunae in investigation, reliance on Municipal Officer's statement, non-speaking order by the Collector.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut's order confirming a duty demand and personal penalty on the appellants for contravention of various Central Excise Rules related to the suppression of production and removal of goods without payment of duty. The appellants were accused of clandestinely sending steel ingots without maintaining proper records. The officers found transport documents from M/s. Roorkee Truck Operators Union indicating the transportation of goods from the appellants' factory. The appellants denied loading goods on the union's trucks, questioning the lack of evidence of octroi payment or passage through the octroi check point.The appellant's representative argued that the adjudicating authority relied on the Municipal Officer's statement without providing transport documents or allowing cross-examination. He highlighted investigative lacunae, non-receipt of consignments as claimed by alleged consignees, and raised a defense of the demand being time-barred. The Departmental Representative referred to the absence of duplicate transport documents and impliedly rejected the non-receipt defense.Upon review, the Tribunal noted the plea of non-receipt of steel ingots by consignees, with written confirmations from six out of seven consignees stating they did not receive the purported consignments. One such letter from Grover Steel Rolling Mills explicitly denied receiving the goods. The Tribunal found that the Collector failed to consider this defense, rendering the order non-speaking. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh adjudication based on the evidence, ensuring a personal hearing for the appellants.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the Collector's duty to reconsider the evidence and issue a new order after providing the appellants with a fair opportunity to present their case.
TaxTMI 