2011 (1) TMI 1138 - HC - Central Excise

Shortage of Modvat inputs and capital goods in the factory premises - officers of the assessee admitted the shortage in their statement recorded during the course of search, the assessee produced several documents during the course of assessment proceedings to show that there was no shortage - adjudicating authority declined to look into these documents on the ground that they were produced as an afterthought and confirmed the demand Held that - matter is restored to the file of the adjudicating authority, appeal is accordingly disposed off

Summary

Issues:
Shortage of Modvat inputs and capital goods in factory premises, consideration of documents produced by assessee, setting aside impugned orders for fresh decision.

Shortage of Modvat inputs and capital goods in factory premises:
The judgment addressed the issue of shortage of Modvat inputs and capital goods in the factory premises of the respondent-assessee. During physical verification, a shortage was found, which was also admitted by the assessee's officers in their statement recorded during a search. However, the assessee produced documents during assessment proceedings to refute the shortage claim. The adjudicating authority refused to consider these documents, deeming them as an afterthought, and confirmed the demand. The Tribunal, on the other hand, deleted the demand without evaluating the documents submitted by the assessee. The court emphasized that the statement recorded could be contradicted by presenting substantial evidence to the contrary. It was highlighted that none of the authorities had examined the documents provided by the assessee to challenge the recorded statements. The judgment stressed that without considering all materials, a valid order could not be issued.

Consideration of documents produced by assessee:
The judgment underscored the importance of considering all relevant materials in reaching a decision. Both parties' counsels agreed that the impugned orders should be set aside, and the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after a comprehensive review of all records. The court noted that in law, statements could be disproved by presenting convincing contrary evidence, which the authorities had failed to acknowledge in this case. As a result, the orders dated 28.11.2001, 31.01.2003, and 2-9-2005 were quashed and set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was instructed to issue a new adjudication order following due process and after giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

Setting aside impugned orders for fresh decision:
Ultimately, the judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned orders and restoring the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The orders dated 28.11.2001, 31.01.2003, and 2-9-2005 were quashed and the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a new adjudication order in compliance with the law after hearing the assessee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed on either party.