Case Law Details
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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
