2006 (7) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of duty and penalty based on evidence of goods cleared without payment of duty, reliance on statements and private records, sustainability of demand based on evidence, comparison with previous Tribunal decision, observations made by Commissioner, remand for fresh decision.

Waiver of Duty and Penalty:
The applicants sought waiver of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 3,62,31,930/- each, along with personal penalties. The demand was confirmed due to the alleged clearance of dutiable goods without payment of duty. The revenue relied on statements from various sources and private records recovered from the applicants' premises to support their claim. The appellants argued that the demand was not sustainable as it was based on the same evidence used in a previous case involving M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd., where the demand was set aside by the Tribunal. They contended that the Commissioner's reasons for disagreeing with the Tribunal's decision were not valid.

Sustainability of Demand:
The revenue contended that the demand was justified, as evidenced by statements, private records, and the actions of the applicants in clearing goods without payment of duty. They argued that the Commissioner specifically mentioned that no duty was demanded solely based on documents recovered from Shri Sudhir Khanna's premises. The Tribunal found that the search of premises and statements of individuals, including Shri Sudhir Khanna, were crucial in confirming the demand. However, the Tribunal noted that the demand in a similar case involving M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. was set aside by the Tribunal, and the Commissioner's observations were deemed unsustainable.

Comparison with Previous Tribunal Decision:
The Tribunal highlighted that the demand confirmed in the case of M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. was overturned by the Tribunal, and this decision was not challenged by the revenue. The Commissioner's observations regarding the Tribunal's decision in the previous case were scrutinized, with the Tribunal finding the present impugned order unsustainable due to unwarranted remarks made by the Commissioner about the Tribunal members. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.

Conclusion:
After thorough analysis and considering the evidence presented, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by remanding the matters to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Tribunal found the present impugned order unsustainable due to unwarranted observations made by the Commissioner, directing that the adjudication proceedings be handled by a different authority. The decision emphasized the importance of respecting higher forums and judicial propriety in handling such cases.