TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This conduct of the assessee, according to the department, is in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act and the conditions imposed for the purpose of import. 3. In view of the above stated position, the factory premises was visited by the department on 11.9.02 and at the said time, the premises was found to be locked. The department found that there was no activity in the factory and that the power connection was also disconnected. The generator sets, which were also purchased duty free under CT-3 were not available. On the contrary, it was found that the same were removed without any proper authorisation. The statements were recorded from various persons and, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued demanding (i) customs duty of Rs. 26,01,60,106/- (Rupees Twenty Six Crores One Lakh Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Six only) - on capital goods; (ii) demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 19,55,494/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Four only) on indigenous materials procured under CT3 certificate; (iii) Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962; (iv) Penalty under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 194....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the conditions of the bond executed for contravention of the said notification read with Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I confirm the demand of excise duty of Rs. 19,55,494/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand and four Hundred and Ninety Four only) on PPL in terms of conditions of Notification No.1/95 CE and under Rule 196 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and in terms of the bond executed. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores only) on PPL under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Fifty Lakhs only) on PPL under Rule 209 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (v) I order the confiscation of the plant and machinery and raw materials, components, consumables under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, and under Rule 209 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and allow them to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 6,50,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Fifty Lakhs only) under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that those documents were not supplied along with the show cause notice issued and, therefore, they are prejudiced. 8. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plea made in the said letter is that the company is declared as a sick industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and the assets were taken over by the Official Receiver under orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and, therefore, they are not in possession of any documents. It is further contended that in view of the orders of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, further proceedings should have been stayed by the Tribunal, which fact has also been highlighted in the said letter. This letter, according to the appellant, was not considered by the Commissioner and he came to pass the ex-parte order and, therefore, prima facie, there is violation of principles of natural justice affecting the rights of the party and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to seek total waiver of customs duty and excise duty, interest, etc. It is further submitted that in view of the order dated 8.1.13 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appear. They could have appeared and sought for adjournment. Having not availed the opportunity, the appellants cannot now plead violation of principles of natural justice based on a letter, which never reached the authority in time. Therefore, we reject the plea of violation of principles of natural justice and further hold that the decision of the Supreme Court, relied on by the counsel for the appellants, does not apply to the facts of the present case as in para-6 of the relied upon judgment it has been clearly stated that there is no dispute that the impugned order therein was passed without affording opportunity. In the present case, opportunity was given, but not availed. 13. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in view of the proceedings of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the proceedings should have been stayed. We find from para-6 of the order of the Tribunal that in the earlier proceedings, Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, vide order dated 21.12.11 has recorded that the assets of the company have been taken over by M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank under SARFAESI proceedings and the Board for Indus....