2015 (10) TMI 1243 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Shortage of goods - Held that - The case revolves around mainly w.r.t the quantification of grey fabrics on the date of visit (24.05.2002) of the officers of Central Excise. It is observed from the Panchnama drawn during the visit of the Officers that the same was carried out far 3 days on 24/25/26-05-2002. Respondent has brought certain facts to the notice of the first appellate authority, explaining their view point on the issue, that quantity ascertained during the course of Panchnama was incorrect. He produces during the course of hearing before the Bench, certain letters of grey fabrics returned to Superintendent of Central Excise indicating returns of grey fabrics to the parties from where the grey fabrics was received. It is not coming out from the records, whether these details were submitted before the Adjudicating Authority or the first appellate authority. In the interest of Justice Appeal filed by the Revenue against the appellant M/s Roopa Dyg & Ptg Pvt Ltd., is required to be allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for reconciling the data submitted by the Respondent alongwith the documents. Needless to say that Adjudicating Authority will grant personal hearing to the appellant to explain their case during remand proceedings. As the period involved in this appeal is May, 2002, therefore, it is directed that the remand proceedings may be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against reduction of demand by first appellate authority, quantification of grey fabrics during Central Excise officers' visit, relevance of clearances and duty payment post 24.05.2002, discrepancies in stock taking, necessity of remand for reconciling data and documents.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order reducing the demand from Rs. 17,15,332 to Rs. 1,93,276 by the first appellate authority. The Revenue argued that the shortage of fabrics was determined in the presence of the appellant and disputed the findings of the first appellate authority. Notably, no separate appeal was filed regarding the revision of penalty on the Director of the Respondent.

2. The Respondent contended that the stock taking of fabrics on 24.05.2002 was inaccurate. The advocate highlighted discrepancies in the quantities of fabrics found short and in excess during the visit. They presented evidence of clearances and returns of grey fabrics before and after the visit, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of these transactions.

3. The main issue revolved around the quantification of grey fabrics during the Central Excise officers' visit on 24.05.2002. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the Panchnama and the Respondent's submissions regarding the quantity of fabrics. Considering the documentary evidence presented during the hearing, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Adjudicating Authority for reconciling the data and documents. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to allow the appellant a personal hearing during the remand proceedings.

4. The Tribunal directed that the remand proceedings should be completed within two months from the date of the order due to the time period involved in the appeal (May 2002). The appeal by the Revenue was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the previous order. All issues were kept open for the adjudicating authority to review and decide upon in light of the reconciled data and documents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment comprehensively covers the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further review and reconciliation of data and documents.