TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Electron Guns and also T.V. Wooden Cabinets. In Feb., 1988, the officers of Central Excise, Delhi conducted certain verifications in the premises of the appellants and found that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Electron Guns since 1981, which they have not declared to the Department and obtained registration. After investigation, 8 show cause notices were issued by the Department in 1988-89 for demanding central excise duty and proposing confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of various penalties. The show cause notice were adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector and Collector and Principal Collector.&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that the remand directions contained in Final Order dated 27.01.1995 was not followed-up, for more than 14 years, by the lower authorities. The present impugned order was passed after such a long gap of more than 14 years dealing with the tax liability of the appellant for the period 1983 to 1988 apparently suffers on account of inordinate delay. The appellant strongly pleaded that such a long delay of 14 years itself is sufficient cause for setting aside the proceedings and the final findings of the lower authority. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Harish Harshavadan Shah reported in 2010 (254) ELT 259 (Bombay) held that the delay of 12 years of un-explained belated adjudication, where no fault is att....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we note that the direction by the Tribunal to provide copy of communication with Department of Electronics has not been complied with. The observation of the Original Authority that the contention of the appellant regarding violation of principles of natural justice does not have force as they are aware of the clarification given by the Department of Electronics, is not tenable. The appellant pleaded before us that the direction of the Tribunal in this regard has not been complied with. We note that the said assertion is factually correct. Though the Original Authority arrived at his conclusion by other reasons also, we find the remand directions are not complied with. 5. On the issue of arriving at the correct amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if it is a Managing Director. This is so because even the statement has not stated as to what is exact amount of the turnover. When in appeal, the appellant pleads that their turnover is only Rs. 39.44 lakhs based on the certain calculations, it is necessary for the Original Authority to give a clear finding instead of rejecting the same based on the general statements given by the Managing Director at the time of investigation. We also noticed that in the multiple proceedings initiated against the appellants, there were over-lapping findings resulting in improper imposition of penalties. This was observed in the remand order of the Tribunal also. 6. We note that the appellant suffered a fire accident in Mar....