Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 27 February, 2001
ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member(T)
1. In its order, the Tribunal found that while the show cause notice relied for its proposal to confiscate the cotton fabrics on the ground that benefit of notification 32/56 had been wrongly claimed, the Commissioner did not refer to any entry in any of the accounts books, except to refer very generally to various entries made in various accounts books. The Tribunal also found that the evidence relied upon by the Commissioner, statements of various persons would be of no help, since these statements were not referred to in the show cause notice.Therefor,it found that the order relies upon evidence which was not made known to the appellant.
2. The application filed by the Commissioner alleges mistake in this order on the grounds which we will now proceed to discuss.
3. It is first contended that the Commissioner has given his finding on the seized documents. We are entirely unable to agree. The Commissioner has merely said:
"The department has gathered ample proof of the same (clearance of without payment of duty), by way of accounts, documents, which were supported by various statements of individual weavers, as well as the employees of M/s. Prakesh Cotton mills Pvt.Ltd.,and their associate concerns, they had very clearly and in no terms stated that M/s.Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., were the real owners of the seized goods.These statements reproduced herein and various entries made in various account books which clearly indicated that the goods were manufactured in contravention of notification dated 5.1.57".
4. Apart from the fact that this bare statement can in no way be considered to be appreciation of evidence, the fact remains that the statement of weavers, employees, etc. were not even cited in three of the show cause notices. The fourth show cause notice, in its body, does not refer to any such persons, and does not cite, any such statements. The annexure to the notice lists 31 statements. It is axiomatic that the notice must cite clearly the charges against the party and the evidence relied upon. This notice does neither. It does not even allege that there has been any clearance of fabrics without payment of duty.Even the notification, which it is alleged, was wrongly availed of, is not mentioned. Not a shred of evidence on which the department relies is mentioned.
5. The grounds 6 and 7 of the application appear to suggest, so far as we can make out, that since the Commissioner has not discussed the evidence at all, that the matter should have been remanded to the Commissioner.That consideration would arise if the notice had cited the evidence which the Commissioner fails to discuss.In that case, there can be a good case for sending the matter to him to pass a speaking order. Where the notice itself does not cite any evidence there is nothing that the Commissioner can discuss. The contention in the application that the Commissioner can discuss. The contention in the application that the Tribunal has passed its order simply because the adjudicating authority did not dwell at length upon the appreciable evidence is either false or shows a total lack of understanding of the Tribunal's order. It only remains for us to note that when the appeal was heard, the departmental representative did not ask for a remand, no doubt because he correctly realised that there was no case for it. We therefore see no reason to interfere.
6. The application is dismissed.