2005 (8) TMI 466 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Modvat credit and imposition of penalties based on alleged use of non-duty paid inputs despite records showing duty paid inputs. Verification of suppliers' affidavits and detailed chart of purchase and sale of inputs not considered by authorities.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the denial of Modvat credit amounting to approximately Rs. 18 lakhs and the imposition of penalties on the appellant due to the alleged use of non-duty paid inputs, despite records indicating duty paid inputs. The appellant contended that they procured inputs for both production and sale, involving 72 consignments from 28 parties. The appellant presented affidavits from suppliers confirming the supply of duty paid materials, which were rejected by authorities citing lack of reliance by Revenue. Additionally, a detailed chart illustrating the purchase and sale of non-duty paid inputs was submitted but not considered during the adjudication process. The appellant argued that if the evidence provided had been taken into account, the demands would not have been confirmed.

The learned SDR highlighted contradictions in the chart submitted by the appellant, acknowledging that the facts within the chart were not verified by lower authorities. The appellate tribunal observed that the impugned order was passed without giving due consideration to the evidence presented by the appellant. The adjudication process should allow the party to produce evidence, which cannot be disregarded solely because Revenue does not rely on it. Failure to consider the evidence results in a one-sided adjudication process. The detailed chart indicating the purchase and disposal of non-duty paid consignments was not verified by lower authorities, indicating a lack of thorough examination.

Consequently, the appellate tribunal found that the impugned order lacked detailed consideration and discussion of relevant evidence. The demands raised based on insufficient findings were deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the original authority for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of the evidence provided by the appellant and affording them a fair hearing. The judgment highlights the importance of a comprehensive review of evidence and a balanced adjudication process to ensure a just outcome.