2008 (9) TMI 661 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal No. SRK/471/RGD/2007
2. Consideration of received CR Coils and availed Modvat/Cenvat credit
3. Allegations of receiving CR Coils in vehicles with inappropriate numbers
4. Tribunal directions for remand proceedings
5. Dropping of charges in show cause notice
6. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against order-in-appeal No. SRK/471/RGD/2007, concerning the receipt of CR Coils and availing Modvat/Cenvat credit. The revenue alleged that the appellant received CR Coils in vehicles with inappropriate numbers, leading to confirmation of demand and penalty imposition by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the adjudicating authority, directing the provision of necessary documents and granting the appellant an opportunity to produce invoices and goods carriage permits.

2. In compliance with the Tribunal's directions, the adjudicating authority dropped the charges mentioned in the show cause notice dated 30-5-2002. However, the revenue contested this decision and appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudicating authority's order, citing non-adherence to the Tribunal's directions and the necessity to verify documents furnished during the appeal stage.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the remand proceedings were clear and followed correctly by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the allegations in the show cause notice. Conversely, the JDR contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) made the correct decision by expecting the adjudicating authority to consider the existing documents and reach a conclusion.

4. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Judge noted that the Tribunal's directions in the remand proceedings required the provision of specific documents to the appellant. The adjudicating authority's decision to drop the charges was based on the unavailability of evidence to support the allegations, as highlighted in the show cause notice. The Judge found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide a valid reason for setting aside the adjudicating authority's order, especially considering the lack of contrary evidence presented by the revenue.

5. Ultimately, the Judge concluded that the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable due to the absence of contrary evidence and the failure to address the lack of documentary evidence on record. As a result, the Judge set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief deemed necessary.