2017 (6) TMI 969 - AT - Central Excise

Misdeclaration of goods - the respondents were clearing Calcium Carbonate manufactured/ cleared in the garb of Hydrated Lime/ Calcite Powder - validity of SCN - whether the Original Authority has correctly dropped the proceedings? - Held that - the Adjudicating Authority has properly examined all the relevant aspects as per the remand directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and arrived at a well reasoned and speaking order and only thereafter dropped the proceedings against the respondents - Revenue has once again raised the same grounds for filing appeals before this Tribunal. We find that the said grounds of appeal have already been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Central Excise duty demand on Calcium Carbonate cleared as Hydrated Lime/Calcite Powder.
2. Imposition of personal penalties on the individuals involved.
3. Adjudication process and appeal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the issue of the respondents clearing Calcium Carbonate as Hydrated Lime/Calcite Powder, leading to a Show Cause Notice for differential Central Excise duty. The Original Authority confirmed the duty and imposed penalties on the individuals. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication based on dealer statements. Subsequently, the Original Authority dropped the proceedings after re-assessment by the respondents, leading to an appeal by Revenue against this decision.

2. The imposition of personal penalties on the individuals, including the Director and Proprietors, was a significant issue. The Original Authority imposed penalties based on the initial Show Cause Notices. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case, and upon re-assessment, the penalties were dropped. Revenue appealed against the dropping of penalties, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority had properly examined all aspects, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The adjudication process and appeal proceedings were crucial aspects of the case. The Adjudicating Authority's examination of the case based on remand directions from the Commissioner (Appeals) was a point of contention. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the grounds raised by Revenue were repetitive and lacked merit. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected all five appeals filed by Revenue, upholding the Order-in-Appeal and providing the respondents with consequential relief as per the law.