2016 (5) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal') in E/69, 70, 559, 825 & 826/2008 whereby, the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has issued various directions in respect of respective appeals. 3. We have heard Mr.Seshachala, learned Sr.Counsel appearing with Smt.Vani H and Mr.B.Pramod, Standing Counsel for respondent-Revenue. 4. The factual matrix of the case appears to be that, on June 20, 2005 there was search and seizure in the premises of the appellant, the dealer and some of retailers. On 17.12.2005, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise issued show-cause notice proposing to confiscate Gutkha seized from the retailer and demanded duty on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on fine were confirmed. Against the said order dated 28.4.2008, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal ultimately vide order dated 1.12.2011 disposed of all the appeals and issued following operative directions which read as under: "(a) Appeal No.E/69/08 by TAG is disposed of as follow:- (i) Demand of Rs. 9,66,224/- relating to the period 2002-03, demand of Rs. 1,35,28,624/- relating to April 2003 to July 2004 and demand of duty relating to April & May 2005 amounting to Rs. 50,05,439/- are upheld. Corresponding penalties of equal amounts under Section 11AC are also upheld. (ii) Demand of duty for the period April 2004 to March 2005 shall be restricted to duty payable on a differential quantity ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty imposed on the appellant when the duty demand itself was not legally sustainable. c) Any other question of law arising out of the order passed by the respective authorities may be formulated for consideration. 11. We have heard Mr. M.V.Seshachala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. B. Pramod, learned Counsel for the respondent. 12. When we heard the learned counsel appearing for both the side, it appears that it is undisputed position that, Section 3-A was on the statute book in the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') by insertion by Act of 81/1956 which came into force on 22.12.1956. Thereafter, on 26.12.1960, said provision of Section 3-A was omitted. Again it was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contention is available to the party aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal. Further, as observed by us hereinabove, even if Section 3-A is to apply, then also, a further scrutiny may be required to be undertaken as to whether, for the goods in question, the notification was issued or not. It isonly after the two aspects of applicability of Section 3-A and the availability of the notification for production of Gutka, the matter can be considered for finalization of excise duty by the Revenue. As,neither there is reference to such contention nor there is discussion by the Tribunal on the aforesaid aspects which are vital aspects for charging of excise duty, we find that it would be just and proper to remand the matter to the Tribunal for ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... into ultimate no sufficient opportunity to meet with the same. When the question arise for observation of the principles of natural justice, it would be a question of law though may be it is based on certain factual premise. 16. We would have considered the matter strictly as to whether such a contention should be examined by this Court, when the contention was not so raised before the Tribunal. However, considering the peculiar circumstances that, as referred to herein above, on the aspects of availability of Section 3-A and on the aspects as to whether goods were so notified for the purpose of charging excise duty, when we have found it properto remand the matter to the Tribunal, we find that it would be just and proper to allow the p....