2024 (4) TMI 63 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - appellant have not accounted for the excisable goods in the records - non-entry of the final products and waste and scrap in Daily Stock register - adjudicating authority failed to consider vital submissions made by the appellant - violation of principles of natural justice - confiscation under Rule 25 of CER - HELD THAT - It is found that the adjudicating authority has not considered the vital submissions made above by the appellant. Therefore, the principle of natural justice has not been complied with by the adjudicating authority - despite giving his finding in respect of the other proposal of the show cause notice he has not given any finding in respect of the proposal (ii) and (vii) of the show cause notice. It is incumbent on the Commissioner to pass an order on each and every proposal made in the show cause notice and he cannot be silent in the operating portion of the order on any of the proposal made in the show cause notice. There is a clear error in the order. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied provision of laws before passing of the order. Since no order was passed on the above two proposal, the whole matter needs to be remanded for passing a fresh order. The learned Adjudicating Authority granting fair opportunity of hearing shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in respect of the concerned charges to hold whether sustainable or not. Such exercise shall meet the scrutiny of law. Entire matter remanded to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for passing a de novo order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order - appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are related to the confirmation of duty demand, fines, and penalties for the appellant-assessee, as well as the Department's appeal regarding the appropriation of the amount deposited by the assessee, enforcement of bond, encashment of the Bank Guarantee, and imposition of penalties under specific rules.

Appellant's Appeal:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of engineering building material, faced allegations of not accounting for finished goods and scrap, leading to duty demand, confiscation, and penalties. The appellant argued that non-entry in the Daily Stock register does not warrant confiscation under Rule 25 without evidence of clandestine removal. They emphasized that Rule 25 is subject to Section 11AC, requiring specific conditions for application. The appellant also contended that physical presence of goods in the factory constitutes accounting for them, challenging the confiscation and penalties imposed.

Revenue's Appeal:
The Revenue's appeal focused on the confiscation of finished goods and scrap, enforcement of bond, demand for Central Excise Duty, and imposition of penalties. The Ld. Commissioner's order lacked findings on certain proposals from the show cause notice, indicating an error in the order. The absence of reasoned decisions necessitated a remand for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and a detailed order on all charges.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a de novo order within six months, allowing both parties the opportunity to present their cases. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits, keeping all issues open for further consideration. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand, ensuring a fair and comprehensive review of the case.