TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue being in a narrow compass, the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Hence, waiving the condition of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal. Early hearing application for appeal is also allowed. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that one M/s. Thir'ven Steels Pvt. Ltd. holders of Central Excise registration having their factory at Venkatarajampet Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District (hereinafter referral to as assessee) manufacturers of MS ingots. The assesses availed CENVAT Credit on the raw materials used in the manufacture of MS ingots. On specific intelligence, it was noticed by the authorities that the assessee had imported scrap which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Central Excise rules, 1944 and Rule 27 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 for the omissions and commissions of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was Deputy Commissioner in-charge of the factory of the assessee. It is also undisputed that the appellant had issued end use certificate in respect of the imported scrap, which were imported by the appellant consumed in the factory premises. The main findings of the adjudicating authority holding that these are commissions and emissions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made there under, is on the ground that the appellant has only verified the RG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervised the unloading thereof. I find that though it was not alleged in the show cause notice that the Deputy Commissioner should have visited the factory of the assessee on each occasion of import and supervised the unloading thereof, to satisfy herself as to the receipt of raw materials into the factory, the Deputy Commissioner should have insisted on the production of documents like Way Bills, LRs and other transport payment receipts by the assessee. 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that there is any specific allegation of collusion against the current appellant in the show cause notice nor there are any findings on this point It is also admitted in the Order-in- original that the appellant herein need not make her ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. We find that in an identical issue, which arose before this Bench, in the case of CC&CE, Hyderabad-II v. Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2007 E.L.T. 392(Tri. Bang.)], in a DEPB fraud, Deputy Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise and Superintendent of Customs & Central Excise were alleged to have connived, which resulted in revenue loss. We find that this Bench had given the followings findings:- "6.1. No doubt the above' allegations are quite serious in nature. How ever, the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the proceedings on two grounds:- (i) The proceedings are time barred jn view of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act. (ii) The acts of omission and commission of the respondents have not rendered the goods liable to confiscation u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause." A reading of the said Act shows that the protection under the above section is applicable to all legal proceedings. Further, if protection to officers against proceedings in courts can be given, there is no reason why such a protection cannot be given to proceedings before quasi judicial authorities. Therefore, we do not find much substance in the Revenue's contention. Further, the Tribunal, in the case of M.I. Khan, has held that protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act is available even in respect of adjudication proceedings. Therefore, the Commissioner was correct in holding that the protection under the Act is available to the respondents. However, in terms of Sec....