2015 (4) TMI 566 - SC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - documents particularly certain GRs became the basis of the issuance of the show cause notice - High Court remanded the case back to the CEGAT with the directions to hold the enquiry as to whether those GRs could be the basis of the demand - Held that - High Court, no doubt, has remarked that the CEGAT did not look into the various documents which were produced by the respondent and did not record the statement of the consignors and consignees who had given the affidavit, etc. To this extent, the High Court may be justified. However, if the matter was not dealt with by the CEGAT affirmatively, without scrutiny of the relevant documents, the only option for the High Court was to remit the case back to the authorities below for fresh consideration in the light of documents filed by the respondent. On the contrary, the High Court proceeded to decide the issue on the premise that documents filed by the respondent are authentic and treating the case put forth by the respondent as gospel truth. That cannot be countenanced. - Matter remanded to Commissioner for fresh consideration - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Central Excise duty demand on goods cleared without payment
- Show cause notice issuance and subsequent legal proceedings
- Orders passed by CEGAT and High Court
- Examination of documents and affidavits
- Remand by High Court for fresh consideration
- Justification of High Court's decision
- Decision to remand the case to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication

Central Excise Duty Demand:
The Department issued a show cause notice proposing a demand of Central Excise duty on goods cleared without payment. The respondent claimed the unit was closed, but inspection revealed production was ongoing. Certain GRs were crucial in the issuance of the notice. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, which was upheld by CEGAT. The High Court remanded the case to CEGAT for further inquiry.

Legal Proceedings:
After the remand, the respondent submitted numerous documents, including consignor affidavits and banking records. CEGAT reexamined the matter and dismissed the appeal. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, criticized CEGAT for not scrutinizing the documents and not recording statements of relevant parties. However, the High Court erred by assuming the authenticity of respondent's documents without proper scrutiny.

Remand for Fresh Consideration:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The Court emphasized the need for a new inquiry considering the documents provided by the respondent and recording necessary evidence. All issues were left open for the Commissioner's fresh examination.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to remand the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication was based on the High Court's premature judgment and failure to ensure a thorough examination of the documents and evidence provided by the respondent. The Court emphasized the importance of proper scrutiny and recording of evidence in legal proceedings involving Central Excise duty demands.