2010 (5) TMI 742 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in Cenvat credit demand and penalty imposition.
2. Modus operandi of the Respondent in issuing Cetrimide solution.
3. Lack of evidence and reasoning in the Appellate Authority's decision.
4. Compliance with the procedure prescribed by Section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue challenged the order of the ld. Commissioner regarding the demand of Rs. 25,270 attributable to Cenvat credit and the non-leviability of penalty. The ld. DR argued that the relief granted by the Appellate Authority lacked proper appreciation of facts and evidence, emphasizing that the Respondent had repeatedly litigated without substantial evidence. The Appellate Tribunal noted that while there was no dispute regarding the levy of duty of Rs. 32,501, the modus operandi of the Respondent in issuing Cetrimide solution raised questions. The Appellate Tribunal found discrepancies in the conversion of Cetrimide powder to solution, emphasizing the lack of evidence and conversion tables to support the Respondent's actions.

2. The Appellate Tribunal criticized the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for making suppositions without concrete evidence, leading to an illogical conclusion. It was highlighted that decisions should be based on factual evidence rather than presumptions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of Appellate Authorities following the prescribed procedures under Section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, requiring orders to be reasoned and speaking, with a clear flow from points of determination to the final decision. The lack of logical reasoning in the Appellate order led to the decision to uphold the demand of Rs. 25,701 and impose penalties accordingly.

3. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the Revenue's appeal based on the discrepancies identified in the Respondent's actions and the lack of proper reasoning in the previous decisions. The judgment underscored the necessity for decisions to be based on concrete evidence and logical reasoning, ensuring compliance with the statutory provisions to maintain the quasi-judicial nature of the orders.