2004 (1) TMI 530 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against impugned order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding unaccounted toilet soap in statutory records
- Disagreement with findings of adjudicating authority
- Defence claiming stock pertained to specific production date
- Allegation of misleading defence by respondents
- Fabricated document presented during appeal
- Correctness of Order-in-Appeal challenged by Revenue

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a dispute regarding the failure to account for 72.569 MTs of toilet soap valued at Rs. 34,01,106/- in the statutory records. The impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the findings of the adjudicating authority, leading to the Revenue challenging the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal and seeking restoration of the original order. The defence put forward by the respondents was that the unaccounted stock was related to the production of a specific date, which the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted, resulting in the appeal being allowed in favor of the respondents.

Upon examination of the case records, it was revealed that the defence presented by the respondents was misleading and misplaced. Even though the production of the specific date was claimed to be recorded, the relevant production report only referred to a fraction of the seized boxes, leaving a significant balance unexplained. The respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this unaccounted quantity during the proceedings. Additionally, a document labeled as Exhibit 'E' was presented during the appeal, purportedly showing the production of the specific date in question. However, it was determined that this document was fabricated, as it contradicted the respondents' own admission regarding the actual production quantity on that date.

The Appellate Tribunal found that the entire basis of the Order-in-Appeal was flawed due to incorrect facts and misleading information provided by the respondents. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents had misled the Commissioner (Appeals) by submitting a fabricated document during the appeal process, which significantly impacted the decision-making process and warranted the reversal of the original order.