Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Shreeji Colour Chem Industries vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 2 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(78)ELT88(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Original No. 19/MP/87 [E No. V(68)15-4/OA/86], dated 14-8-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda, confirming the demand for a sum of Rs. 4,49,136.70 towards duty and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lacs on the appellants under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. The merits of the case are not discussed in this order because the Learned Advocate Shri J.M. Patel, only pleads for a remand of the case back to the adjudicating authority on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, by submitting that personal hearing has not been given to them before passing the impugned order. In this context, when the notice was issued to them, their Executive Director, under his letter dated 24-2-1987 addressed to the Deputy Collector, Central Excise (Preventive) H. Quarters, Baroda, has drawn his attention to the personal discussion which he had with the Deputy Collector, wherein he was given a promise by the Deputy Collector that case would be decided without imposing penalty and no prosecution will be launched and accordingly he has paid full duty amount demanded in the Show Cause Notice without any objection, as per the promise given by the Deputy Collector. Thereafter the impugned order came to be passed imposing a penalty of Rs.10.00 lacs, without extending any personal hearing to them. He also pleads that Mr. Vyas who has done this mischief, though as an executive director of the firm he was the beneficiary. Subsequently civil suit proceedings were initiated before the High Court against him.
3. Shri K.P. Mishra, the Ld. SDR, however, points out that Show Cause Notice itself makes it clear that if they want a personal hearing they should specifically ask for and they have not asked for a personal hearing and there is excise duty evasion to the extent of Rs.4.00 lacs, which has been admitted by the executive director of the company and he also volunteered to make the payment without any hesitation and this is evident from his letter. In the circumstances, extension of personal hearing is not warranted and he opposed to the remand.
4. After hearing both the sides, though the duty appears to have been voluntarily paid without any hesitation, there appears to be a discussion between the executive director and the Deputy Collector. In any case, when a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lacs is sought to be imposed by an adjudicating authority, presumably after taking note of the contents of this letter, we feel that an opportunity should have been extended to the appellants to explain their position in person. In this view of the matter, we agree with the request of the Ld. Advocate for a remand of the case back to the adjudicating authority. We therefore, allow the appeal by way of remand of the case back to the adjudicating authority, who should extend an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and thereafter pass order in accordance with law.
5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.