2015 (9) TMI 773 - HC - Central Excise

Quantification of demand of duty - Evasion of duty - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that - Commissioner whilst making the demand of duty for both Polyester Yarn and Viscose Yarn had not indicated the duty separately on each of these products and, as such, as no duty was payable with regard to the Polyester Yarn, the demand with regard to the Viscose Yarn had to be re-visited on the basis of goods manufactured by the Respondent during the period in question. The said Order clearly shows that the claim of duty with regard to Viscose Yarn was ordered to be re-examined by the authorities. In such circumstances, the contention of the Appellants that there was no question of re-examining the said issue cannot be accepted on reading the said Order dated 19.07.2004 Appellant had failed to note that closing balance was 24.16 MTs. Taking note of the said closing balance which has not at all been considered by the Adjudicating Authority whilst holding that there was clandestine removal of 14.54 MTs, we find that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The fact that the figures on the balance sheet have to be accepted has not been disputed by the Appellant. In fact the Tribunal has noted that there is no material on record produced by the Appellant to dispute the correctness of the figures shown on the balance sheet. These findings of fact by the authorities below cannot be reappreciated by this Court in the present Appeal. Thus, the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record rightly rejected the claim of Appellant that there was clandestine removal of the goods. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether it is permissible to reconsider a settled issue in a proceeding that has attained finality?
2. Interpretation of earlier orders by the CESTAT regarding duty payments.
3. Justification of setting aside the Commissioner's order by the CESTAT.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute where the Respondent was accused of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods without duty payment. The Commissioner confirmed a demand, but the CESTAT later set it aside. The Appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Respondent cannot dispute settled findings. The Appellant contended that evidence was misconstrued, leading to an erroneous decision by the CESTAT. However, the Respondent argued that no shortfall existed, and the allegations were baseless. The High Court noted that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the remand order, focusing on Viscose Yarn production during the relevant period. The Appellant's claim of clandestine removal was refuted based on balance sheet evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2:
Regarding the duty claim on Polyester and Viscose Yarn, the CESTAT found no duty payable on Polyester Yarn but remanded the Viscose Yarn duty assessment. The Appellant's argument against re-examining the issue was rejected based on the remand order's clear directive. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need to separately assess duty for each product.

Issue 3:
The Appellant alleged clandestine removal of Viscose Yarn, but the Tribunal found discrepancies in the Appellant's calculations. The closing balance on the balance sheet contradicted the Appellant's claims, leading to the rejection of the clandestine removal allegation. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that no grounds existed for interference.

In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the CESTAT's decision in favor of the Respondent.