VALLABH ALLOYS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals are directed against the same order of adjudication. Accordingly, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE main appellant M/s. Vallabh Alloys Ltd. is a small -scale industry established in 1991. The other appellants are its officers, M/s. Vallabh Alloys took a Central Excise registration in June, 1992 for manufacture of copper/brass sheets, which are liable to central excise duty. On 2 -4 -93, this registration was surrendered. On 21 -8 -97, Central Excise Officers inspected the appellant's factory and seized goods valued about Rs. 19 lakhs. After further investigation, Show Cause Notice was issued on 18 -2 -98 alleging that the appellant had been clandestinely manufacturing and clearing copper/brass sheets without payment of duty. The Notice, therefore, proposed to demand the alleged short -levy and imposition of penalties. This notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi in May, 1998, confirming a duty demand of over Rs. 98 lakhs, confiscating the seized goods and imposing penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s. Vallabh Alloys Ltd., Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Padam Jain, Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Sandeep Jain and Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri B.K. Jain. The appellants and Revenue both filed appeals against this order before this Tribunal. While the present appellants challenged the duty demand, penalties and confiscation; the Revenue challenged the finding that provisions of Section 11AC and Section 11AB which came into force from 28 -9 -1996 cannot be invoked retrospectively. The Tribunal allowed both the appeals by way of remand vide Final Order No. A/1130/99 -NB(DB), dated 6 -12 -1999 and Final Order Nos. A/330 -333/2000 -NB(DB), dated 7 -4 -2000. Order -in -Original dated 27 -12 -2000, which is the subject -matter of the present appeals was passed by the Commissioner pursuant to these orders of remand.

(3.) M /s. Vallabh Alloys challenge the impugned order on many grounds. The very first ground is that duty demand and penalties could not have been enhanced in a remand proceedings. It is further pointed out that the proceedings were conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice, two of the witnesses Shri Chunchun and Shri Subhash Yadav (employees of M/s. Vallabh Alloys) whose statements have been relied upon in passing the impugned order were not offered for cross -examination; and they were witnesses of Revenue. It is further pointed out that Commissioner has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act in support of introduction of their evidence.