Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad vs Parle International Ltd on 20 November, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. E/1079 to 1081/03 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 62/2001-Commr. dated 28.2.2002 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Mr. K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical) ====================================================== 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Appellant Vs. Parle International Ltd. Respondent Parle Bottling Ltd. Parle International Ltd. Appearance: Shri N.A. Sayed, Authorised Representative (JDR), for appellant Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Mr. K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 20.11.2008 Date of Decision: 20.11.2008 ORDER NO................................. Per: P.G. Chacko These appeals of the Revenue are directed against an order passed by the Commissioner in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 11.8.2008 issued to the respondents. M/s. Parle International Ltd. [Yo Frooti Division, hereinafter referred to as PIL (YF)], were asked to pay (a) duty of Rs.5,51,890/- found short-valued at Rs.68,98,634/-; (b) duty of Rs.10,62,240/- on raw materials found short valued at Rs.70,74,170/-, and (c) Rs.23,91,519/- being the amount of MODVAT credit found to have been irregularly availed. M/s. Parle International Ltd. [Jolly Jelly Division, hereinafter referred to as PIL (JJ)], were asked to pay (a) duty of Rs.5,64,617/- on raw material found short, and (b) duty of Rs.2,21,837/- on finished goods and raw materials valued at Rs.22,99,200/- which had been seized and subsequently released provisionally to them against B-11 bond and bank guarantee. M/s. Parle Bottling Ltd. [Agro Division, hereinafter referred to as PBL (AD)], were directed to pay (a) duty of Rs.14,738/- on finished goods found short; (b) duty of Rs.68,285/- on raw material found short, and (c) duty of Rs.20,42,019/- on finished goods, raw material and packing material which had been seized and subsequently released provisionally against B-11 bond and bank guarantee. Interest on duty and penalties were also proposed to be levied from all the three parties. PIL (YF), respondent in appeal No. E/1079/03, PBL (AD), respondent in appeal No. E/1080/03 and PIL (JJ), respondent in appeal No. E/1081/03 contested the show-cause notice through detailed replies. In adjudication of the disputes, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned order dropping the proceedings against the respondents. Hence these appeals of the Revenue. 2. The main ground raised against the Commissioner's order is that he did not pass a speaking order. The learned SDR has reiterated this and other grounds of the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel also. On a perusal of the Commissioner's order, we note that the appellant is perfectly justified in challenging the same on the ground that the adjudicating authority did not choose to state any reason for taking the decision against the Revenue. The operative part of the Commissioner's order is reproduced below:- "FINDINGS I have carefully gone through the Show Cause Notice and submission made by the assessee and with reference to various case law pleaded at the time of Personal Hearing. I find that the assessee had filed the requisite declaration as required under Rule 57T(1) & 57T(2) with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, and Supdt., Central Excise on 14.3.97 & 19.3.97 respectively. The said capital goods are installed and utilised for manufacturing their final products viz., "Baily Aqua and Yo Frooti". The duty character and receipt of the goods has been not disputed, and has been utilised as against duty paid clearance of a permitted final product "Yo Frooti". The submission made by them that "the so called shortages/excesses are fully reconcilable and within premises of three units" is convincing. I have also gone through the case laws referred by them is their defence. In view of the above I do not find reasons to uphold the Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER
The Show Cause Notice supra is hereby dropped."
3. The learned Commissioner has found that the submissions made by the respondents were convincing. However, it is not discernible from his order as to in what manner he was convinced. He also states that he has gone through the case law referred to by the respondents. However, there is nothing to indicate that he examined the applicability of the case law. In his conclusion, he merely states that he does not find reason to uphold the show-cause notice. We have got to deprecate this kind of an order. We set aside the Commissioner's order and allow these appeals by way of remand directing the lower authority to pass a speaking order on all issues in de novo adjudication of the case, after giving the respondents a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (Pronounced in Court) (K.K. Agarwal) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 4