TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xchange Earning as a Percentage of Export (NFEP). 3. The present proceedings emanate out of Show Cause Notice dated 31.5.2008 issued by the Additional Director General, DRI. The Show Cause Notice alleged under valuation and mis-declaration, by the Appellant, of the goods imported by it, and consequently, proposed a demand of Customs duty of Rs.5,76,63,741/-, under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Show Cause Notice also alleged mis-declaration in respect of clearances effected by the Appellant in the DTA and, on this count, proposed a Central Excise duty demand of Rs.5,15,57,631/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with the proviso thereto. 4. The impugned Order-in-Original is only by way of part Adjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.6.09 filed by the counsel on behalf of the noticees, nothing with respect to non-receipt of documents in the case was mentioned. When the first personal hearing, in this proceedings was fixed for 2.9.2009, the Noticees, vide their letter dated 2.9.2009, intimated this office that they had not received the RUDs/documents in the case and that the same be supplied to them. The required RUDs/documents were supplied to them by the investigating agency between 22.11.2009 to 30.11.2009, but they sought further time to file the final reply. However, they were granted further time till 24.12.2009 but they failed again and requested that they may be allowed further time to submit their reply by 31.12.2009. Keeping in view the principles of natural ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.2009, deliberately failed to furnish the final reply in the case to unnecessarily avoid the completion of adjudication proceeding on one or the other ground and did not cooperate in the matter. I also like to state in this regard that initially during the course of investigation the noticee No. 2, Shri R.K. Maheshwari, did not cooperate with the DRI and this fact has already been recorded in Panchnama as mentioned in para 12.1 of the SCN. Therefore, I am taking up the case for adjudication on the merits on the basis records available and the interim reply dated 17.11.2009 filed by the noticees counsel." 6. Per contra the Ld Counsel made the following submissions about delay in furnishing reply to SCN. "(iv) The first notice of pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue further filed Review Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which, too, was dismissed vide Order dated 24.4.2009. (vii) In the circumstances, the Commissioner could not have legally proceeded with the Adjudication without permitting cross-examination of the DRI officers involved in the overseas investigations. (viii) However, without even a cursory appreciation of these facts, the Commissioner, vide record of proceedings dated 2.9.2009 summarily rejected the said request for cross-examination. No reasons, whatsoever, are forthcoming, for the said decision of the Commissioner. (ix) In so far as the request for documents were concerned, the Commissioner wrote to the Appellant on 3.9.2009 directing it to collect the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both sides. So the bench felt that a proper course of action would be to ask the Appellants to furnish reply to the SCN before the Tribunal in a sealed cover by 24/06/11 so that further direction in the matter could be given on that day. 8. Accordingly the matter has come up for hearing today. The Appellants have furnished replies to the SCN. At this stage we consider it proper to remit the matter, keeping all issues open, to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh considering the submissions made in the reply now furnished and giving the Appellant proper opportunity for personal hearing. 9. It is made clear that that this Tribunal is not making any observations on the detailed submissions made in the reply to the SCN w....