2008 (2) TMI 730 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against the order of adjudication by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata IV.

The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata IV, which set aside the order of adjudication, alleging that the basis of adjudication was not appreciated and there was no material to prove the reconcilability of physical stock found on verification. The Revenue contended that the excess stock found was too large to be accounted for by any variation in the verification method, and there was a difference in physical stock confirmed by statements under statutory provisions. The Revenue argued that the order of adjudication was reasoned and supported by evidence, including excess stock or shortage of raw materials in statutory records, slips, and statements of various persons, indicating evasion of Central Excise duty.

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of adjudication, noting the absence of weighment slips along with calculation sheets and seizure lists annexed to the show-cause notice, deeming the order unsustainable. The Revenue, represented by Shri Y. S. Loni, highlighted three bases for issuing the show-cause notice: suppression of finished goods, non-accountal of alloy steel ingots in statutory register, and shortages of input materials. Evidence from statements of individuals and documents like labour attendance register and production records supported the claim of evasion of duty due to clandestine removal of goods.

The Respondent's counsel argued that the Appellate Authority's order was well-founded, refuting the Revenue's grounds for appeal. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that there was a sound basis for adjudication, and the Appellate Authority should have examined the evidence in detail instead of summarily setting aside the order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence, including statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, and decided to remand the matter for re-examination to ensure a fair opportunity for both sides to present their case.

Decision: The appeal was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a re-examination, providing a reasonable opportunity for both parties to be heard and ensuring compliance with the law. Cross Objection was also disposed of during the proceedings.