K.L. Hakkim Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that remand order of de novo adjudication being passed after 18 years is liable to be set aside as department failed to explain the humongous delay.
Facts- It was noticed that during the years 1984-85 and 1985-86, the appellant made clearances without accounting for the same and without paying central excise duty. Accordingly, it was found that the appellant was liable to pay duty of Rs.17,96,241/-.
Show cause notice dt. 05.05.1989 was issued to them proposing to demand duty, interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai vide order No.19/90 dt. 28.12.1990 confirmed the demand of Rs.16,95,289/- being the duty not paid during the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and ordered for appropriation of Rs.50,000/- already paid by them. Penalty of Rs.4 lakhs was imposed on the appellant and a personal penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on Sri K.L. Hakkim, Managing Partner under rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Against such order, the appellant filed appeal before CEGAT, Madras. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.693/95 dt. 31.08.1995 set aside the impugned order and remanded for de novo Thereafter, the matter was taken up for de novo consideration and the impugned order was passed by the adjudicating authority on 25.09.2013 again confirming the demand of Rs.16,95,289/- and imposing penalty of Rs.4 lakhs on M/s. Galaxy Rubber Industries under Rule 173Q and further penalty of Rs.1 lakh on Sri K.L. Hakkim Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is once again before the Tribunal.
Conclusion- It is a case in which there is delay in taking up the matter for de novo adjudication after the remand by the Tribunal (earlier known as CEGAT). The department has not been able to explain the delay of about 18 years in completing the de novo The matter was remanded by the Tribunal on 31.08.95 and the remand order of de novo adjudication has been passed only on 29.09.2013. The delay is humongous and unexplained. The documents were also not available for perusal by the adjudicating authority who has been fair enough to record the same in the order. We find complete violation of principles of natural justice.
Held that the impugned order cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufactures of tread rubber classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 16A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules upto 28.02.1986 and thereafter under Chapter Heading 4006 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from 01.03.1986. Based on intelligence that there was evasion of central excise duty by the assessee, the officers of Central Excise of Preventive Unit, Madurai conduced investigations and follow up action. It was noticed that during the years 1984-85 and 1985-86, the appellant made clearances without accounting for the same and without paying central excise duty. The evasion was done by the appellant as follows :-
