2014 (4) TMI 1228 - AT - Central Excise

Variation in the value of sales figure as reported in Profit and Loss Account and Sales Tax Returns with ER-1 returns for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Demand of Central excise duty - Held that - The appellant had placed the records. The learned Authorised Representative also made submission to distinguish these evidences. So it is appropriate that the matter is required to be examined by the adjudicating authority after considering these evidences - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty based on variation in sales figures, lack of supporting evidence for claimed exports, difference in scrap items due to fire, lack of documentary proof for returned goods, absence of documentary evidence presented before lower authorities, acceptance of negative sales returns as turnover.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by a company engaged in manufacturing synthetic adhesive, where a demand of duty was imposed due to discrepancies in reported sales figures for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand along with interest and penalty, a decision affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant contended that the differences in sales figures were due to unaccounted exports, scrap items from a factory fire, and returned goods from carpenters. However, the Commissioner noted the lack of supporting evidence for these claims, including the absence of documentary proof for exports, scrap items, and returned goods. The appellant later presented various documents to support their case, which were not previously submitted to the lower authorities.

The Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the documents were not placed before the lower authorities and emphasized the negative sales returns as unacceptable turnover. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission of additional records and noted the Authorized Representative's attempt to distinguish these evidences. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration. The adjudicating authority was instructed to provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their defense before making a decision. The appellant was directed to cooperate with the authority during the reconsideration process. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay application was disposed of.