2012 (12) TMI 646 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement of Duty - transportation charges, sales tax, dealer s profit and dealer s commission - Held that - Abatement claimed towards transportation charges were on account of lorry rent, van maintenance, van depreciation, trolley hire and forwarding charges - figures were taken by the assessee from their Profit and Loss account and Balance sheet submitted before the Income Tax authorities and there is no specific challenge against these findings of the learned Commissioner. Moreover, the appellant (assessee) has not claimed that, in the written submissions filed with the adjudicating authority, he requested for supply of any records to be relied upon in support of his abatement claims. If that be so, the present grievance of the appellant with reference to the seized records is without bona fide - no iota of truth in the present grievance of the appellant that natural justice was denied to him - Commissioner granted further abatements after considering the submissions of the assessee and, accordingly, worked out the amount of Rs.1,23,146/- to be paid by him - In the result, this appeal gets dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand of duty for the period from 1981-82 to 1983-84
- Claim of abatement towards various expenses
- Consideration of abatement claims by the adjudicating authority
- Compliance with Tribunal's remand order
- Denial of natural justice claim by the appellant
- Final decision on the amount of duty to be paid

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against a demand of duty for a specific period, which was the subject of the third round of litigation. In the initial rounds, the Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to recompute the duty amount. The present appeal challenged the order passed by the Commissioner following the Tribunal's remand order. The appellant claimed that more abatement was admissible and that the seized records, once provided, would substantiate this claim.

The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority did not have the seized records available during the personal hearing after the Tribunal's remand order, which affected the consideration of abatements. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the abatement claims were duly considered, and only specific abatements were allowed. The Tribunal carefully examined the submissions and found that the manner of computation of duty was intimated to the appellant for comments, and the appellant had filed written submissions along with a calculation sheet.

The Tribunal noted that the learned Commissioner had disclosed the computation of duty to the appellant and provided an opportunity for submissions, which the appellant availed by filing detailed documents. The appellant's claim of denial of natural justice was deemed unfounded. The Commissioner, after considering the submissions, granted further abatements and calculated the final amount of duty to be paid by the appellant at Rs.1,23,146.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner regarding the duty amount to be paid by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had appropriately followed the Tribunal's remand order, considered the appellant's submissions, and granted abatements accordingly.