2018 (6) TMI 1205 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly investigated the matter - Clandestine removal - It is the grievance of appellant is that there was repetition of demand of the duty involved on the seized goods - Held that - The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the details of evidences relating to confirmation of demand of duty of ₹ 2,05,526/-, but based the finding on clearance of 10.630 MT without payment of duty seized by the department. It is necessary to remand the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to records the findings on evidences relating to the clandestine clearance resulting into short payment of duty of ₹ 2,05,526/-, as alleged by the department and the issue of duplication of demand raised by the Appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of duty, interest, and penalty.
2. Allegations of duplication of demand.
3. Lack of corroborative evidence in confirming the demand.
4. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods.
5. Analysis of evidences by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

Confiscation of goods and imposition of duty, interest, and penalty:
The case involved the interception of a truck carrying MS Plates/pipes without proper documents, leading to seizure and subsequent investigation. The appellants were issued a Show Cause notice for recovery of duty, interest, and penalty. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and imposed personal penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellants challenged this order, leading to the present appeal.

Allegations of duplication of demand:
The appellant argued that there was duplication of demand as they had already paid a fine, penalty, and duty pursuant to a previous order related to seized goods. They contended that the demand shown in the present Show Cause notice was unjustified and bad in law.

Lack of corroborative evidence in confirming the demand:
The appellant claimed that the demand of duty was confirmed solely based on statements without sufficient corroborative evidence such as statements from transporters or buyers. They argued that the demand was speculative and not supported by concrete proof, making it legally unsustainable.

Allegations of clandestine removal of goods:
The Ld. AR presented evidence suggesting clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods by the appellants, including the interception of goods without valid documents and the recovery of parallel invoices without justification. The statement of a key individual involved in preparing invoices further supported the allegations of clandestine activities.

Analysis of evidences by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals):
Upon review, it was found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not adequately analyzed the evidence related to past clearances and clandestine activities. The order primarily focused on the confiscation of seized goods without delving into the details of other allegations and evidentiary support. As a result, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough examination of the evidence and findings related to the alleged clandestine clearances and the issue of duplication of demand. The appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity for a hearing in this regard.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the decision reached by the tribunal, ensuring a detailed understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.

← Previous Next →