2017 (4) TMI 683 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices issued by dummy firms - Held that - even though sufficient opportunities were allowed to the Appellant during the period February 2006 to October 2006 to appear and participate in the adjudication proceedings by furnishing their reply, the Appellants had failed on both the counts, that is, neither furnished the reply to notice nor appeared before the learned Commissioner during personal hearing resulting to present ex-parte Order - Considering huge amount of liability and the gravity of charges and the quantum evidences gathered by the department during investigation and relied by the adjudicating authority in confirming the demand, the Appellants be given a last opportunity for furnishing the reply and participate in the adjudication proceeding before the learned Commissioner by rebutting the allegations framed against them in the Notice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against OIA No.19/MP/2006
- Allegation of wrong availment of CENVAT Credit
- Confirmation of demand and penalty
- Non-appearance and non-submission of reply by the Appellants
- Request for last opportunity to furnish reply

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals filed against OIA No.19/MP/2006, where M/s Choksi Silk Mills were alleged to have wrongly availed CENVAT Credit of a substantial amount based on invoices from dummy/fictitious firms. The demand was confirmed along with penalties on the company and an individual under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Appellants requested additional time to submit their reply and participate in the proceedings, citing reasons such as delayed receipt of documents and illness of their consultant. The Appellants failed to furnish the reply or appear before the Commissioner, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of the charges and evidence presented, but granted a last opportunity for the Appellants to rebut the allegations and participate in the adjudication proceedings. It was agreed that the amounts paid during the proceedings would not be refunded during the remand process.

The learned Advocate for the Appellants accepted that despite multiple opportunities, they had not submitted their reply or participated in the adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal, considering the significant liability and gravity of charges, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision after providing a hearing to the Appellants. The Appellants committed to actively participating in the denovo proceedings by promptly responding to notices and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of the Appellants' active involvement in the proceedings to address the allegations against them effectively.