2008 (3) TMI 332 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of watches - Tribunal straightaway proceeded to find, that a duty of ₹ 5,12,343/- and ₹ 6,79, 563/- had been confirmed, for having illegally availed Modvat credit on the mechanical watch movements, which were not physically received by them, and duty of ₹ 6,75,109/-, which was confirmed on account of clandestine removal of wrist watches without payment of duty, was set aside, for want of sufficient proof of removal of watches by the firm, as entered in the slips, without corroboration Held that - The matters have been decided by the learned Tribunal in absolute hotchpotch manner, without application of mind, and without examining the entire record, from the appropriate standpoint, to arrive at an ultimately reconcilable conclusion, of the whole scenario. In such circumstances, instead of ourselves undertaking the long drawn exercise of examining the entire record from the standpoint of every import, manufacture, disposal, stock of every article, and production, and then, to arrive at a conclusion, one way or the other, about the sustainability or confirmation of demand, or dropping of demand, we better stand advised, to set aside the entire judgment whole hog, with respect to all the four appeals, and remit the whole matter to the learned Tribunal back, with a direction, to give reasonable opportunity of hearing, rather patient hearing, to both the sides, to examine the record threadbar

Summary

Issues:
Challenging common judgment of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Excise Appeals. Allegations of evading Central Excise Duty and misusing Modvat credit scheme.

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from a common judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning Excise Appeals. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence conducted searches on the premises of three appellants based on suspicions of evading Central Excise Duty and misusing the Modvat credit scheme. Records were seized, and stock verifications revealed discrepancies leading to demands and penalties being confirmed by the Commissioner.

2. The controversy centered around the procurement of mechanical watch movements, their usage, and the clandestine removal of watches. The Tribunal's order highlighted discrepancies in the availing of Modvat credit and the alleged clandestine removal of goods by the appellants.

3. The Tribunal's findings varied across the appeals. For instance, in Appeal No. 2666, the Tribunal confirmed demands related to availed Modvat credit on mechanical watch movements but rescinded demands on shortage of watch cases and movements due to lack of tangible evidence for clandestine clearance. Similar decisions were made in Appeal No. 2667 and 2668 based on insufficient proof of removal of goods and absence of evidence supporting the allegations.

4. Appeal No. 2669 saw the confirmation of demands for wrongly availed Modvat credit on watch movements removed clandestinely. The Tribunal scrutinized the usability of mechanical watch movements in manufacturing digital electronic watches, emphasizing the necessity of digital modules for such purposes.

5. Upon reviewing the voluminous record, the High Court noted the confusion in the Tribunal's decisions regarding the disposal of goods and the availing of Modvat credit. The Court highlighted the need for a comprehensive examination of facts to arrive at a coherent conclusion regarding the demands and penalties imposed.

6. In light of the Tribunal's inconsistent and unclear decisions, the High Court set aside the entire judgment and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The Court directed the Tribunal to conduct a thorough review, provide a fair hearing to both parties, and make a well-founded decision without allowing the introduction of new evidence.

7. The High Court allowed all appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and instructing a reevaluation of the appeals with a focus on clarity, objectivity, and a detailed examination of the records. The Court emphasized the importance of a meticulous review process to ensure a just and well-reasoned outcome.