2010 (7) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

Adjudication two SCN issued for same period and two orders passed by commissioner duty demanded higher in second SCN where figure of cost of production lower as compared as compared to previous SCN - no explanation as to why the first Show Cause Notice was not withdrawn Held that - remand the matters to the Commissioner for de novo consideration

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duplication of demand in two orders passed by the Commissioner on the same day.
2. Discrepancy in the valuation of goods cleared by the appellant on a stock transfer basis.
3. Lack of proper defense presentation by the appellant.
4. Need for remanding the matters for de novo consideration by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of duplication of demand in two orders issued by the Commissioner on the same day. The Appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, faced demands of duty and penalties for the same period in both orders. The Tribunal noted the lack of submission regarding duplication before and emphasized the brief nature of the Commissioner's orders without adequate discussion. The Tribunal highlighted the surprise at the oversight and directed the department to choose which order to support, ultimately setting aside both orders for reconsideration.

2. Another issue addressed was the discrepancy in the valuation of goods cleared by the appellant on a stock transfer basis. Two Show Cause Notices recorded varying year-wise costs of production, leading to significantly different duty demands. The Tribunal pointed out the lack of explanation for issuing a second notice instead of amending the first, as well as the absence of justification for the cost variations. The Tribunal criticized the mechanical confirmation of demands and the casual approach from both sides, directing a remand for a thorough reconsideration by the Commissioner.

3. The judgment highlighted the appellant's failure to present a proper defense, contributing to the issues faced. The Tribunal noted the lack of effort in defending the case adequately before the Commissioner, leading to the need for a fresh consideration of the matters. The judgment emphasized the importance of presenting basic facts and relevant materials for a fair adjudication process.

4. Lastly, the judgment concluded by emphasizing the need to remand the matters for de novo consideration by the Commissioner. To avoid further embarrassment and ensure a comprehensive review, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reevaluate the issues after granting a reasonable opportunity for hearing and considering all relevant materials. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, highlighting the significance of a thorough and well-supported decision-making process in such cases.