Page 108 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

330 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Tech Abrasives Ltd. (supra), where the Bench has observed that the proceedings
are ‘quasi-criminal’ in nature, because it results in imposition of not only the du-
ty, but also the penalty and in many cases, it may lead to prosecution. Strict in-
terpretation is warranted only in respect of the ‘imposition of penalty’, which
cannot have any automatic application in respect of the quantification of the
tax/duty evaded. The said judgment does not come to the rescue of the Appel-
lant/Assessee insofar as the incidence of ‘duress/coercion/force’ in taking the
statements concerned by the investigating team is not specifically pleaded, nor
was sought to be substantiated before the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate
Authority/Tribunal. Under such circumstance, the position is taken care of by
the law declared by the Apex Court in Kalvert Foods India Private Limited (supra)
(paragraph 19) more so, when the duty evaded was agreed to be paid by the Di-
rector of the Appellant-Company as given in his statement and proving the word
by his deed, the amount of Rs. 21,59,770/- and Education Cess of Rs. 43,195/-
was satisfied, before adjudication. Further, the modified order of penalty inflict-
ed upon the Director (as ordered by the Tribunal) has become final, as no chal-
lenge is raised by the Director in the connected Appeal No. E/1651/2008 (against
which no appeal has been preferred) and the common finding and reasoning
therein stare at the Appellant/Assessee-Company.
24. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the
order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of law and is not
assailable under any circumstance. No substantial question of law is made out by
the Appellant to call for any interference under Section 35G of the Act, 1944.
25. The appeal fails. It is dismissed accordingly.
________

2020 (372) E.L.T. 330 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, J.
LEO PRIME COMP PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA

W.P. No. 23581 of 2019, decided on 7-1-2020
EXIM - Natural justice - Personal hearing - Representation under Sec-
tion 9(2) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 to extend
EPCG Licence period for export obligations rejected without offering petition-
er any opportunity of personal hearing - Provision under Section 9(4) ibid,
mandating reasonable opportunity of being heard - Impugned order set aside -
Respondents directed to issue notice to petitioner in furtherance to representa-
tion, grant personal hearing to petitioner and examine records if any produced
by petitioner and thereafter pass order on merits with reasons - Section 9(4) of
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. [paras 7, 8, 9]
Petition allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri M. Balasubramanian, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Joshua Christie for V. Chandrasekaran, SPC,
for the Respondent.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  108