2010 (10) TMI 176 - HC - Central Excise

Demand - shortages recorded in the Panchnama Revenue contended that figure mentioned in panchnama due to calculation error and seized records indicating higher quantum Tribunal order holding proceedings not extedable beyond shortages recorded in panchnama and reducing duty demand sustainable no substantial question of law appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Extension of proceedings beyond recorded shortages and quantum increase.
2. Reduction of confirmed duty based on recorded shortage quantity.
3. Granting option to deposit dues with 25% interest of Penalty.
4. Duty of Adjudicating Authority to explain provisions and offer options.
5. Error in relying on a previous case regarding payment of interest.
6. Interference with penalty imposed under Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant revenue questioned the Tribunal's decision to not extend proceedings beyond shortages recorded in the Panchnama, despite the Managing Partner admitting a calculative error discovered post further investigation. The Tribunal's stance was that no substantial legal question arose from this finding of fact.

Issue 2:
Regarding the reduction of confirmed duty from Rs. 4,38,104 to Rs. 3,56,023 based on the recorded shortage quantity, the Tribunal's decision was upheld as no substantial legal question emerged from this issue.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal's decision to grant the option to deposit dues with 25% interest of Penalty within 30 days was supported by previous court decisions, including references to Union of India v. Dharamendara Textile Processors and Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills. The court found no substantial legal question in this matter.

Issue 4:
The necessity of the Adjudicating Authority to explain provisions and offer specific options to the assessee was raised. However, the court found no substantial legal question arising from this issue.

Issue 5:
The Tribunal's reliance on a previous case where interest was paid before the Order-in-Original issuance was questioned due to non-payment of interest within thirty days in the present case. The court dismissed this as not constituting a substantial legal question.

Issue 6:
Regarding the penalty imposed under Central Excise Rules, the court referred to the decision in Union of India v. M/s. Dharamendra Textile Processors. However, no substantial legal question was found in this matter, leading to the summary dismissal of the Tax Appeal.