2018 (1) TMI 42 - AT - Central Excise

Shortage/discrepancy of 3060 kgs. of finished goods - difference in the quantity mentioned in the respective balance sheet and in the RG-1 Register - Held that - had the Range report been given at the initial stage, the litigation would not have continued so far to this Tribunal again. However, examining the report vis- -vis the submission and findings, I find that apparent discrepancy in the balance sheet figure and respective statutory records noted by the Audit party had been properly addressed by the Range Officer in its report dated 22.9.2009 - the adjudicating authority ought to have considered and recorded a specific finding in relation to the apparent discrepancy of sales/production figures in the respective balance sheets vis- -vis the statutory records maintained by the Assessee-Appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal, discrepancy in sales and production figures, demand of duty, reduction of demand, remand to adjudicating authority, consideration of Range report, confirmation of demand with interest, remand to the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No.VAD-EXCUS-003-APP-11/15-16 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Daman, regarding a discrepancy in sales and production figures noticed during an audit. The Range Officer submitted a report mentioning the explanation provided by the Appellant. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty, which was later reduced after adjudication. Both Revenue and Assessee-Appellant filed appeals, with the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Revenue's appeal and rejecting the Assessee-Appellant's appeal. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority by the Tribunal for further consideration. However, the adjudicating authority proceeded with de novo adjudication without supplying the Range report, leading to further appeals and a reduction in the demand. The Assessee-Appellant contended that the Range report was not properly considered, resulting in the confirmation of the demand with interest.

The Appellant's advocate argued that the adjudicating authority did not consider the Range report, leading to the confirmation of the demand with interest. He highlighted a discrepancy in the stock of finished goods and contended that the error in mentioning the quantity of goods was not properly appreciated by the Commissioner (Appeals). The advocate emphasized that had the Range report been scrutinized properly, the differences in sales figures and quantity of goods entered in the records would have been reconciled. He requested a remand to the adjudicating authority with specific directions to consider the report.

The Revenue's representative acknowledged that the Range Officer's observations were not properly examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) and had no objection to remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for not following its specific direction to supply the Range report and proceeding with de novo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the Range report in addressing the apparent discrepancies in the balance sheet figures and statutory records. It directed the adjudicating authority to seriously consider the explanations provided by the Assessee-Appellant and the Range Officer's findings while adjudicating the case afresh. Consequently, the Appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for further consideration.