2003 (10) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against setting aside of demand of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed on a company for shortage of inputs and clandestine clearance of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the demand of Central Excise duty and penalty on a company due to a shortage of inputs and clandestine clearance of goods. The case involved the manufacturing of synthetic yarn by the company, which availed Modvat Credit for duty paid on inputs. The Central Excise officers found a shortage of inputs involving duty during a physical verification, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice for duty recovery. The Assistant Commissioner imposed duty and penalty, which was later remanded for de novo adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued regarding the clandestine clearance of goods without payment of duty, which was challenged by the company.

The Revenue argued that both show cause notices were inter-linked, and the inputs were used in manufacturing yarn, justifying the duty demand. However, the company contended that issuing a new show cause notice on the same facts was illegal and cited legal precedents to support their argument. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and noted that the present show cause notice was based on the same facts as the earlier one, without any new evidence or material. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department could not change its stance by issuing a new notice on the same facts. The Tribunal found no justification for the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the demand and penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that issuing a new show cause notice on the same facts without new evidence was not permissible. The decision highlighted the importance of finality in adjudication proceedings and prevented repeated notices on identical grounds. The judgment underscored the legal principle that once an adjudication order is passed, reopening the matter for a new order on the same facts is impermissible, ensuring procedural fairness and legal certainty in tax matters.