2004 (9) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty and penalty confirmed by Commissioner.
2. Scope of remand order and re-computation of duty.
3. Imposition of penalty on the Director.
4. Adjudication within the scope of remand order.

Analysis:

1. Demand of Duty and Penalty Confirmed by Commissioner:
The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, penalty imposition, and goods confiscation by the Commissioner. The Appellants contended that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the remand order by confirming duty on more goods than specified. The Tribunal noted that duty was demanded only for 13,18,407 bottles, and the Commissioner's decision to demand duty on 31,14,646 bottles exceeded the remand order's scope. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh adjudication within the remand order's confines.

2. Scope of Remand Order and Re-computation of Duty:
The Tribunal emphasized that in remand proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority must adhere to the remand order's parameters. The Commissioner's decision to demand duty on a larger quantity of bottles than specified in the remand order was deemed beyond the scope of authority. The Tribunal directed a fresh adjudication within the remand order's limits, allowing the Appellants to raise their issues before the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Imposition of Penalty on the Director:
The Appellants raised concerns regarding the increased penalty imposed on the Director during the adjudication process. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle that penalties cannot be escalated in de novo proceedings. The learned Sr. Counsel requested a re-adjudication of the penalty matter within a specified time frame due to the prolonged pendency of the case.

4. Adjudication Within the Scope of Remand Order:
The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for the Adjudicating Authority to confine the adjudication process within the remand order's directives. The Commissioner's decision to confirm duty on a larger quantity of goods than specified in the remand order was deemed a departure from the remand order's boundaries. Consequently, the matters were remanded for a fresh adjudication within the confines of the remand directions provided in the earlier Final Order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of adjudicating the matters afresh within the specified time frame and within the parameters set by the remand order.