2017 (3) TMI 1597 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - clearances made by the loan licencee - validity of SCN - Held that - When the SCN is thoroughly looked into, para 23 thereof brings out allegation of improper valuation of the finished goods manufactured by the loan licencee cleared to the appellant. How this particular allegation has emanated has not been brought out in the show cause notice succinctly. In absence of the allegation to confront to the appellant for rebuttal, there cannot be a plea of Revenue on the improper valuation of clearances made by the loan licencee to the appellant at a depressed value. Once the SCN fails to provide the foundation against the allegation in para 23 therein, that fails to stand - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Improper valuation of clearances by loan licensee, lack of proper foundation in show cause notice, biased decision by Appellate Commissioner, necessity of transparent adjudication process.

Improper Valuation of Clearances by Loan Licensee: The appellant argued that they had already paid duty on the goods received from the loan licensee, including clearances of both the licensor and licensee. The Revenue contended that the value of clearances by the loan licensee was not properly determined, leading to a depressed assessable value causing prejudice to Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not clearly specify the basis for the allegation of improper valuation, which hindered the appellant's ability to rebut the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal held that without a proper foundation in the notice, the plea of Revenue regarding the improper valuation could not be sustained, and the appeal was allowed.

Biased Decision by Appellate Commissioner: The Tribunal criticized the Appellate Commissioner for not understanding the real controversy at hand and merely agreeing with the Revenue without comprehending the issues for decision. It was observed that the Appellate Commissioner's decision was influenced by the review order, showcasing bias and lack of impartial analysis. This criticism highlighted the importance of adjudicators understanding the core issues in a case and making decisions based on a thorough examination of facts and legal principles.

Necessity of Transparent Adjudication Process: The Tribunal expressed displeasure over the drafting of the show cause notice, the lack of clear allegations for decision-making, and the hasty approach adopted by the appellate authority. Emphasizing the need for a transparent and fair adjudication process, the Tribunal urged the Revenue to draft proper show cause notices that clearly outline the allegations to ensure justice for both the assessee and the Revenue. The Tribunal underscored the wastage of public time and money due to ill-prepared adjudications, leading to prejudice against both the interest of justice and public revenue. It called upon the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise to guide the field in conducting adjudications that safeguard the revenue's interests and avoid futile exercises that result in losses to the exchequer. The Registry was directed to provide relevant documents to the Chief Commissioner for review and potential forwarding to the Board for issuing appropriate guidelines and educating field officers on proper adjudication practices.