2016 (12) TMI 1850 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - PVC insulated wires armoured/unarmoured cables - retraction of statements - appellant produced different charts pointed out various mistakes in calculating the duty demand and the same has not been considered - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is the contention of the appellant that during the course of adjudication they produced various charts for calculation of demand duty and the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. In fact those calculations given by the appellant are required to be considered by the adjudicating authority. Moreover the defences raised by the appellant are to be considered by the adjudicating authority in true spirits and after considering the explanations and chart given by the appellant. As the adjudicating authority was required to give due consideration of the records produced by the appellant but the same has not been given in that circumstances the impugned order deserves de-merits therefore the same is to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration the grievance raised by the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Manufacturing without Central Excise registration, clearance on private challans, duty demand calculation, consideration of discounts, capacity of manufacture, inclusion of recorded sale, calculation errors, non-consideration of appellant's charts.

Manufacturing without Central Excise Registration:
The appellants were manufacturing PVC insulated wires armoured/unarmoured cables without obtaining Central Excise registration and clearing the goods on private challans to their trading firm. A search was conducted, and statements were recorded, leading to the conclusion that the appellants exceeded the permissible SSI Exemption, making them liable to pay duty on their clearance.

Duty Demand Calculation:
The appellant argued that duty demand should be based only on quantities mentioned in the challans for goods cleared to their trading firm, not on seized kachha records. The appellant also contested the inclusion of recorded sales in the clearance value, claiming duty was demanded beyond their production capacity. They presented a certificate supporting their manufacturing capacity as well.

Consideration of Discounts:
The appellant highlighted discrepancies in discount calculations over different periods, urging uniform discount consideration for the entire period. They argued that previous years' price lists were not factored in, affecting the assessable value determination and discount allowances.

Capacity of Manufacture and Inclusion of Recorded Sale:
The appellant emphasized their production capacity and challenged the inclusion of recorded sales in the total clearance value, asserting that all goods were cleared based on challans. They also pointed out errors in calculating duty demand during adjudication, requesting a fresh assessment.

Non-Consideration of Appellant's Charts:
The appellant contended that various charts and calculations they provided during adjudication were not considered by the authority, leading to an erroneous order. They argued that their defenses and explanations were not properly evaluated, warranting a set-aside of the impugned order for a fresh adjudication.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the non-consideration of their charts and defenses during adjudication. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a reevaluation of the appellant's grievances and the charts presented. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law based on the contentions and evidence provided by the appellant.