2016 (3) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

Stock discrepancy warranted enhancement of demand plea of the appellant that stock taking was done in dark is false when there was thread bare examination of the evidence made - Held that - Adjudicating authority shall first deal with the outcome of the physical inventory,and outcome of the hard disk of the computer. Secondly,the outcome of the loose slips shall be examined in detail to arrive at the proper duty demand if any, to serve the interest of justice. Thirdly, he shall examine the contents of the notebook and evaluate the evidence thereofto arrive at the duty demand, if any. It may so happen that all the three materials and evidence may corroborate with each other.That aspect may be specifically dealt. Revenue is not required to lay evidence with mathematical precision.Preponderance of probability comes to itsrescue.It may use primary, corroborative and probable evidence to examine the allegations and considering defence plea shall determine dutiability if any. Therefore, the authority shall independently apply his mind without being guided by the appellate finding of lower appellate authoritywho made partial remand of the matter. So far as the second show-cause notice is concerned, if that is different from the first show-cause notice, the authority shall properly deal with that independently or in combination with the first show-cause notice. He has to clearly bring out the status of each show-cause notice and allegation made therein dealt thoroughly in his reasoned and speaking order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegations and demands raised in the first show-cause notice dated 02.09.2010.
2. Allegations and demands raised in the second show-cause notice dated 23.06.2011.
3. Examination of evidence, defense pleas, and actions of the authorities.
4. Revenue's submissions and justification for the demands.
5. Consideration of stock discrepancies, inventory, and documentary evidence.
6. Adjudication process and directions for re-examination by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:

1. The first show-cause notice dated 02.09.2010 proposed a demand based on the transfer of raw materials between Unit - I and Unit - II without proper utilization in the manufacture of dutiable goods. The demand was initially set at Rs. 12,60,211 but reduced to Rs. 7,60,135 after considering defense pleas and evidence. The appellant contested the allegation of no use of raw materials for manufacturing finished goods, citing errors in physical stock verification and lack of examination of computer records by the authorities.

2. The second show-cause notice dated 23.06.2011 alleged that raw materials were clandestinely transferred between units, resulting in a demand of Rs. 341,61,490 which was later reduced to Rs. 1,61,490 by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant argued for re-examination of computer records and defense pleas to resolve the controversy.

3. The Revenue contended that proper demands were raised based on evidence of unauthorized transfer of raw materials and stock discrepancies. The Adjudicating Authority partially remanded the matter for further evaluation of evidence, including loose slips and oral testimony, to determine duty liability.

4. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to examine the inventory process, computer data reliability, loose slips, and documentary evidence in detail. The appellant was to be given a fair opportunity to rebut the materials used against them, ensuring a reasoned and thorough adjudication process.

5. The Authority was instructed to independently assess the evidence, considering the preponderance of probability and defense pleas, without being influenced by previous appellate findings. Each show-cause notice and its allegations were to be addressed clearly in the final order.

6. The judgment concluded by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for re-examination, emphasizing a reasoned and speaking order with ample hearing opportunities for the appellant during the readjudication process.