2010 (7) TMI 958 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order confirming demand of duty against appellant; Compliance with directions of Tribunal in earlier orders; Determination of duty liability based on relevant and reasonably acceptable material; Consideration of purchase bills, variety of fabrics, and yarn prices; Defiance of Tribunal's directions by Commissioner; Lack of proper adjudication based on relevant evidence; Insubordination by Commissioner in decision-making.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a challenge to an order confirming a demand of duty against the appellant. The Tribunal noted that this case had been subject to multiple rounds of litigation, with the Commissioner initially confirming the demand in 1994 and subsequent remands by the Tribunal for re-determination of the demand. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Commissioner to comply with its directions, particularly in quantifying the duty liability based on relevant and reasonably acceptable material, including purchase bills, fabric varieties, and yarn prices.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner failed to adhere to the directions provided in earlier orders. Despite specific instructions to consider relevant evidence and material in determining duty liability, the Commissioner merely reproduced earlier orders and did not conduct a thorough assessment based on original documents. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner's reliance on summary charts and invoices, without proper verification, did not meet the standard of compliance with the Tribunal's directives.

Moreover, the Tribunal criticized the Commissioner for attempting to justify the duty determination based on average prices, failing to differentiate between grey and dyed yarn prices, and showing insubordination by agreeing with the reasoning of a previously set-aside order. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner's actions demonstrated a lack of proper adjudication and a disregard for the Tribunal's authority.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a re-determination of the duty liability in accordance with the law and the Tribunal's directions from earlier orders. The Tribunal instructed the Commissioner to expedite the process within six months and directed the Registrar to notify the Revenue Secretary and the Board Chairman of the decision. The appeal and application were thus disposed of, highlighting the importance of adherence to legal directives and the proper consideration of evidence in duty determinations.