- (1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.4.2004 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi passed in Appeal No.E/2987/02-B.
(2.) This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:- (i)Whether it is not legal impropriety committed by the Tribunal whilst taking contradictory views on two vital issues, which are common in the present case and in the matter of Ratan Industries in Appeal No.E/2258-2259/02-B dated 23.12.2003. In the latter case, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the departmental contentions are superfluous and mainly based on the report of a technical expert Sri Prashant Kumar and on the statements of the buyers of the said Hubs, who were dealing in the manufacture of tractor trolley wheels. This evidence in the said case was not even considered to be tenable and demand of duty and penalty was set aside. The Tribunal's observation in the appellant's case are perverse with regards of the same set of evidence and were pondered to be suffice to uphold the demand of duty and penalty? (ii)Whether it was justified for the tribunal to overlook the material fact that only one sample was taken in glaring contravention of Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules, whereby the normal procedure is that the 3 samples of the articles are to be taken. The appellant was not afforded opportunity to challenge the correctness of the same, which amounts to be the violation of the principles of natural justice? (iii)Whether the tribunal is justified whilst not discerning the issue raised by the department was barred by limitation, more particularly when the appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 30.11.1999 by the officers of the Central Excise (Preventive) for the alleged indulgence in clandestine removal of fully finished excisable goods. It is thus articulated that the Central Excise Officers were aware of the products manufactured by the present appellant. Therefore, they cannot claim that the appellant was suppressing or mis-declaring his product. More so, the appellant was filing the regular returns before the Excise authorities and the classification of the product was not challenged erstwhile. The appellant was issued a show cause notice by the department in the year 1999, whereby they carried out rigorous investigations. This issue was favourably decided by the Tribunal in the matter of Ratan Industries whilst adverse view was taken in the present matter? (iv)Whether the Tribunal was justified whilst overlooking the two expert reports furnished by appellant, which specifies that the hub manufactured by the appellant cannot be used in tractor trolley. It is relevant to mention here that even the report of Dr. Prashant Kumar does not specify that the hub manufactured by the appellant can be used in tractor trolley. It is settled law that the defense witnesses must be considered and given the due weightage, equivalent to the departmental witnesses?
(3.) The appellant was engaged in manufacturing of excisable goods. The department, after investigations in regard to the clearances of Hubs effected by them during the period 1.1.1997 to 31.3.2000, issued a show cause notice on 12.11.2001 demanding Central Excise Duty of Rs.43,83,440/- along with penalty on the ground that the benefit of exemption under Notification No.76/86-CE dated 10.2.1986 was not available to the Hubs manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the aforesaid period. The Commissioner of Central Excise, in adjudication of the dispute confirmed the aforesaid demand of duty and also imposed penalty. An appeal was filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi which was also dismissed with a modification in the quantum of penalty.;