2017 (5) TMI 89 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of order passed by Commissioner (A) - case of Revenue is that the original authority has not conducted verification of the documents furnished by the assessee - appellant claims that the Additional Commissioner in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal decided the case on the basis of the statements and the certificates issued by the export houses and those certificates were not being controverted by the Revenue inspite of the opportunities given to them - Held that - this is the third round of litigation before the Tribunal and the Revenue by filing the present appeal wants to open up the issue once again which has been decided by the Tribunal and the original authority on the directions of the Tribunal has decided the issue - it was found that the Additional Commissioner has conducted reasonable verification and decided the issue - there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against the Commissioner (A) upholding the Order-in-Original and dismissing the department's appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved the clearance of cotton fabrics without duty payment, claiming exemption as hand-woven fabrics unprocessed. A show-cause notice was issued demanding duty, confirmed by the Joint Commissioner. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision. The CESTAT, Bangalore initially set aside the demand but later remanded the matter to the original authority for adjudication. The Joint Commissioner reduced the duty amount and confirmed a lower sum. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision again. The High Court of Kerala upheld the final order, allowing verification with exporters. The Additional Commissioner later confirmed a reduced demand, leading to the department's appeal before the Commissioner, challenging the acceptance of the assessee's statements and certificates without evidence to challenge their veracity. The Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal, leading to the present appeal by the department.

During the hearing, the department argued that the Commissioner (A) did not conduct verification of the documents provided by the assessee, and no justification was given for accepting the evidence. The Range Officer's reports indicated a lack of documents linking the exported goods with those cleared from the factory, hindering verification. On the other hand, the assessee's consultant defended the decisions, stating that the Additional Commissioner based the decision on the export houses' certificates and statements, unchallenged by the Revenue despite opportunities. The demand was confirmed under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, upheld by the Commissioner (A) after considering the certificates and statements.

Ultimately, the Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, found no issues with the Commissioner (A)'s decision, upholding the order and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 28/03/2017.