Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S Sun International Exports vs Cc, Nhava Sheva on 19 April, 2001
ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Sun International Exports a duty of Rs. 1,39,928/- has been demanded from M/s Haresh Kumar & Co. alongwith interest payable @ 24/- per annum in terms of the provision of the Customs Act. Further, a penalty of Rs. 1,39,928/- have been imposed on the license holder the present appellant M/s Sun International Exports.
2. Appearing for the appellant, Shri Abhishek Jain, learned Advocate submits that the allegation as levied in the show cause notice had been denied by the appellants and evidence has also been produced that no modvat credit had been availed of by their supporting manufacturers form whom the cosmetic and toilet preparations have been purchased for report. He refers to the certificate at page 62 of the paper book given by the Superintendent. He also refers to the copies of the relevant RT-12 returns for the year, 1993 of M/s Chemi-Kleen (India) Private Limited their supporting manufacturers with regard to the item tooth paste, tooth powder, detergent, saving cream and washing powder. It is his plea that no effective opportunity was given by the Commissioner of Custom, Nhava Sheva before passing the impugned order. He pleads that as all the relevant information has been supplied to the Commissioner, he should have gone into it and there was no ground for imposing penalty on the present appellants. He pleads that the Tribunal may decide the matter on merits.
3. Shri M.M. Dubey, learned JDR submits that in the show cause notice it has been clearly alleged that the input stage duty has been availed of by the manufacture of the said goods and that the certificate at page 62 of the paper book is not clear as the show cause notice was issued in the year 1997 and there is no date on which the appellants approached the Superintendent, Central Excise and what was the ground for obtaining the said certificate in the year 1993. He submits that whenever documents was produced before the adjudicating authority the same has been discussed for adjudication of the appeal.
4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the matter was decided along on merits but without hearing the present appellant. From the discussion and finding part of the order it is clear that M/s Sun International Exports had asked for an adjournment of the case but the same was not granted and on the basis of the documents on record the order has been recorded.
5. We find that the various documents referred to by the appellant have to be gone into in detail and matter needs to be re-examined in the light of the allegation referred to the show cause notice alongwith certificate. The certificate at page 62 refers to the goods under chapter heading 33.06 which is for preparations for oral or dental hygiene such as tooth powder and tooth paste, it does not cover the saving cream was one of the other items exported covered under heading 33.07. We do not find any certificate with regard to the goods covered by the heading 33.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. DR has also doubted even this certificate with regard to the heading 33.06. We, therefore, consider that it is not possible for us to judge the genuineness of the certificate and other documents. We have to send back this matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner for denovo consideration and provide an opportunity to the appellant to present their case and then to pass a speaking appealable order as per law. The appellants are at liberty to file relevant documents before the adjudicating authority to whom the matter is being remanded. With these observations the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced & dictated in the open Court).