2015 (10) TMI 840 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of order of Commissioner Appeals - When the appellate authority has recorded that there was a discrepancy between the weighment slip and the recorded stock, reconciliation ought to have been made at the interest of justice. Assessee required the documents to be provided by the Department for its defence. But that was not done. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) without going into the matter came to the conclusion that when the documents were not given to respondent adjudication is to be set aside, which is wrong - Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that cross-examination was not given. When that was not done, adjudication ought not have been be set aside - when the goods were not available on the plea of theft, learned Appellate authority took a view that the matter is beyond show-cause notice. He has not brought out how and in what circumstance the adjudication arose on such count. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy between weighment slip and recorded stock.
2. Lack of reconciliation in the interest of justice.
3. Failure to provide documents for defense.
4. Goods not available due to theft.
5. Lack of explanation for adjudication on theft.
6. Absence of cross-examination.
7. Adjudication set aside without proper evidence testing.
8. Remand to Adjudicating authority for justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellate authority noted a discrepancy between the weighment slip and the recorded stock. However, no reconciliation was made in the interest of justice. The Assessee requested relevant documents from the Department for defense, but they were not provided. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the adjudication without proper examination of the matter.

2. The Appellate authority also addressed the issue of goods not being available due to theft. The Appellate authority did not explain how the adjudication arose on this basis and reached a conclusion summarily. This lack of detailed reasoning raises concerns about the validity of the decision.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) mentioned that cross-examination was not allowed, but setting aside the adjudication solely on this basis without testing the evidence is not logical. The decision to set aside the adjudication should be based on a thorough examination of the facts and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

4. In light of the above issues and to ensure justice, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority. The Adjudicating authority was directed to provide the relevant documents to the Appellant for defense upon proper application and allow cross-examination based on the evidence and circumstances of the case. The plea of theft leading to the non-existence of stolen items was also highlighted for verification. The ultimate goal is to grant the Appellant a reasonable opportunity to defend their case and for the Adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate order based on a fair assessment of the evidence.