TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2A and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the duty paid to the extent of Rs. 17,50,206/- under protest should not be appropriated; and on certain other grounds. The show cause notice was replied on 31-5-1999 denying the demands and the consequential imposition of penalties. By order dated 7-12-1999, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III Commissionerate, accepting the demand notice, issued certain directions including the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 34,50,307/- under the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, appropriation of Rs. 17,50,206/- towards the duty demanded in the notice and after appropriation, a further amount of Rs. 17,00,101/- to be paid by the first respondent, imposition of mandatory penalty of Rs. 27,56,937.95 under Section 11AC and another penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules. 3. The above order of the Commissioner of Central Excise was questioned by the first respondent before the CESTAT. Going into the records as well as the submissions made on either side, the CESTAT, having noticed that the clearances from both Raw Material Store (RMS) and Finished Products Store (FPS) were controlled by computer system and as the com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2007. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant acquired knowledge of the impugned order only on and from 8-8-2007. If the limitation period of 180 days is calculated from the date of receipt of the impugned order by the appellant on 8-8-2007, the CMA ought to have been filed on or before 4-2-2008. In this case, the original case papers were filed on 4-2-2008 through the earlier Standing Counsel for the Department vide C.M.A. SR. No. 10696 of 2008. On 6-2-2008, the Registry returned the CMA papers. 6. I respectfully submit that during 2007-08 the counsel was nominated by the Law Ministry. Accordingly, we handed over the case papers on 31-1-2008, to earlier nominated standing counsel Shri C. Gurulingam. As per records, on 4-2-2008, the learned previous standing counsel filed the CMA vide SR No. 10696 of 2008. On 6-2-2008, it was returned by the Registry for certain compliance and the learned counsel took the return of case papers on 11-2-2008. When enquired, we were informed by the learned previous standing counsel that the CMA would be numbered and listed for final hearing in due course. We were also under the impression that the work would be duly carried out as promised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guments on merits, to contend that the first respondent cannot be allowed to evade payment of duty. He would submit that the records would show that the contention of the first respondent-assessee as to the non-payment of duty was due to error in computer system is totally false and there has been a wilful evasion of payment of duty, as could be seen that the transaction went on for several occasions and was not confined to one single transaction. Hence, the interest of the Revenue in challenging the order of the CESTAT should not be prejudiced solely on the ground that the appeal has not been filed in time. 7. On the question of delay, the learned counsel would submit that though the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed in time, the papers ware returned by the Registry and were taken back by the then standing counsel, who had not re-presented the same to the Registry and for that reason, the original papers could not be traced and therefore, fresh appeal has been filed with delay. The learned counsel would submit that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and in the event, the same is not condoned, the Revenue would be put to financial loss of several lakhs of rupees toward....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Commissioner's office. Though it is claimed that an appeal was filed within a period of 180 days from 8-8-2007, i.e., on 4-2-2008, the affidavit proceeds on the basis that the said appeal was numbered in C.M.A. SR. No. 10696 of 2008 and the Registry returned the papers on 6-2-2008. Even assuming that the appeal was filed within the limitation period, i.e., on 4-2-2008, the fact remains that the Registry had returned the papers on 6-2-2008. The petitioner seeks to explain their failure to represent the papers by stating that the papers were handed over to the then nominated standing counsel on 31-1-2008, who filed the appeal on 4-2-2008. Though as per the entry made in the register, the papers were returned on 6-2-2008, the petitioner could not find out as to whether the said papers were re-presented by the then standing counsel except stating that when enquired the previous standing counsel, the petitioner was informed that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would be numbered and listed for final hearing in due course. There is absolutely no explanation on what date the earlier counsel was asked about the filing of appeal and the explanation is only vague. 12. Further, due ....