1999 (10) TMI 326 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Discrepancy in stock balance during physical verification, failure to consider appellant's submissions in Show Cause Notice reply, dispute over stock position, necessity of remand to original Adjudicating Authority.

In this case, the appellant raised a crucial issue regarding the discrepancy in the stock balance during physical verification by the Officers at the factory premises. The appellant's representative contended that the Department's allegation of excess stock was based on incorrect assumptions, emphasizing that the stock register showed only a minor variation, not the alleged excess weight. The appellant disputed the Department's claim of excess stock, attributing the discrepancy to the Officers' estimation method rather than actual weighing. Despite the appellant's detailed submissions in response to the Show Cause Notice, both the Asst. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider this crucial aspect, prompting the appellant to request a remand to the original Adjudicating Authority for a fair assessment.

Another issue raised was the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's contentions, as highlighted by the JDR representing the Respondent. The JDR pointed out that the partner of the Appellant Firm did not dispute the shortage/excess at the time of the Officers' visit or during the preparation of the Mahazar. The absence of findings in the Orders-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal regarding the appellant's current claim further complicated the matter, indicating a lack of substantiation for the appellant's position.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions and records, the Judge acknowledged the appellant's dispute regarding the stock figures and the mistake in the Officers' calculation of the opening balance. Notably, the Asst. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to address this critical issue in their orders, leading to the decision to remand the case to the original Adjudicating Authority for a thorough examination. The Judge emphasized the necessity of examining the appellant's defense outlined in their response to the Show Cause Notice, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice during the fresh adjudication process.

Ultimately, the Judge allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Asst. Commissioner for a comprehensive review, setting aside the previous order. This decision aimed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to substantiate their claims and address the discrepancies in the stock balance effectively.